On 22.12.2010 12:04, Alexander Holler wrote:
gcc 4.5.1 seems to ignore (at least some) volatile definitions,
avoid that as done in the kernel.
Reading C99 6.7.3 8 and the comment 114) there, I think it is a bug of that
gcc version to ignore the volatile type qualifier used e.g. in __arch_getl().
Hello,
Am 01.01.2011 13:04, schrieb Dirk Behme:
> On 22.12.2010 12:04, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> gcc 4.5.1 seems to ignore (at least some) volatile definitions,
>> avoid that as done in the kernel.
>>
>> Reading C99 6.7.3 8 and the comment 114) there, I think it is a bug of
>> that
>> gcc version
On 01.01.2011 18:52, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am 01.01.2011 13:04, schrieb Dirk Behme:
>> On 22.12.2010 12:04, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>> gcc 4.5.1 seems to ignore (at least some) volatile definitions,
>>> avoid that as done in the kernel.
>>>
>>> Reading C99 6.7.3 8 and the comment 11
Am 01.01.2011 19:25, schrieb Dirk Behme:
> On 01.01.2011 18:52, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Am 01.01.2011 13:04, schrieb Dirk Behme:
>>> On 22.12.2010 12:04, Alexander Holler wrote:
gcc 4.5.1 seems to ignore (at least some) volatile definitions,
avoid that as done in the kerne
On 01.01.2011 19:47, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 01.01.2011 19:25, schrieb Dirk Behme:
>> On 01.01.2011 18:52, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Am 01.01.2011 13:04, schrieb Dirk Behme:
On 22.12.2010 12:04, Alexander Holler wrote:
> gcc 4.5.1 seems to ignore (at least some) volat
Le 01/01/2011 16:31, Marcel a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> In my previous working version of U-boot I used CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATION but
> this doesn't seem to work any more.
>
> Any reason why it doesn't work any more ?
> Is there another way to skip relocation ?
It actually has no sense any more. The current
6 matches
Mail list logo