Re: what exactly is a "patch," anyway?

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Michael N. Moran wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
>
> > Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > >   however, in looking at those arch-dependent makefiles, it wasn't
> > > clear to me that setting the compile options was an actual error.  i
> > > had assumed that, since the kernel programmers put that in, it was
> > > there for a purpose, so it wasn't really a bug.
> >
> >
> > I only want to fix it if it's a bug.
>
> Its only a bug for the latest versions of GCC.

Can you give me a one-line example of the problem
compiling a "hello, world" program?

> Now, how can we determine the GCC version in
> the "arch/{arm,sh}/Makefile" to make the kernel
> happy for all versions of GCC. Suggestions?

I can suggest more once I see what options you're talking about...

> My guess is that we're suffering because "normal" (sane)
> kernel builders haven't tried the bleeding edge GCC ;-)

They do, but maybe not on all processors.
- Dan


--
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer?  See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com