>>> On 29.10.13 at 10:54, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> * Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> On 26.10.13 at 12:31, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > * Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>> >> I'd like to point out though that with __compiletime_object_size()
>> >> being restricted to gcc before 4.6, the whole construct is going to
>> >> become more and more pointless going forward. I would question
>> >> however that commit 2fb0815c9ee6b9ac50e15dd8360ec76d9fa46a2 ("gcc4:
>> >> disable __compiletime_object_size for GCC 4.6+") was really necessary,
>> >> and instead this should have been dealt with as is done here from the
>> >> beginning.
>> >
>> > Can we now revert 2fb0815c9ee6?
>>
>> Actually I'm afraid parisc would first need to follow the changes
>> done on x86 here, or else they'd run into (compile time) issues
>> (s390 and tile only emit warnings, i.e. would at worst suffer
>> cosmetically unless subtrees putting -Werror in place are
>> affected).
>
> Given how trivial __compiletime_object_size() is, we could replicate
> a (differently named) copy of that in x86 uaccess.h?
I would never have dared to suggest something like that...
But if you're fine with that, I can certainly do so. I'd then
even wonder whether we shouldn't re-use the same name,
#undef-ing the one we got from compiler*.h - after all the
goal would be for compiler-gcc4.h to change in exactly that
way.
> This is something that would be pretty platform dependent anyway.
Why do you think so? That's entirely a compiler construct.
Jan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
