Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:42:04 +0100 | From | Russell King <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2.5.74] correct gcc bug comment in <linux/spinlock.h> |
| |
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:08:11PM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > Linus, > > This patch updates include/linux/spinlock.h's comment regarding gcc > bugs for empty struct initializers, to correctly state that the bug > is present also in 2.95.x and at least early versions of 2.96 (as > reported by one Mandrake user). > > /Mikael > > --- linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h.~1~ 2003-07-03 12:32:46.000000000 +0200 > +++ linux-2.5.74/include/linux/spinlock.h 2003-07-03 16:07:59.772534704 +0200 > @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ > } while (0) > #else > /* > - * gcc versions before ~2.95 have a nasty bug with empty initializers. > + * gcc versions up to 2.95, and early versions of 2.96, have a nasty bug with empty initializers. > */ > #if (__GNUC__ > 2) > typedef struct { } spinlock_t;
This also isn't that clear (does it mean up to 2.95.0 but not including 2.95.1 etc.) Also, we don't build with gcc < 2.95 anyway, so there's no need to mention anything older. This removes the doubt:
"All gcc 2.95 versions and early versions of gcc 2.96 have a nasty bug with empty initializers."
-- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |