Re: Kernel Bug in 2.4.35 when compiled gcc>=4.2.0 and -march=c3

On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 07:04:20AM +0200, Axel Reinhold wrote:
> According to Willy Tarreau:
> > > >Well, top-level assembly is usually nasty.  Setting the section in the
> > > >assembly statement as you said is probably the only thing you *can* do.
> > > 
> 
> I do not understand the details of the discussion, but isn't the
> fact, that there is more than one way for the compiler to produce
> "correct" code of the nasty statements, also a "timebomb" for
> other projects - especially for Linux 2.6?

no because 2.6 uses quite a different method.

Willy

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • Re: Kernel Bug in 2.4.35 when compiled gcc>=4.2.0 and -march=c3
    • From: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>
  • Re: Kernel Bug in 2.4.35 when compiled gcc>=4.2.0 and -march=c3
    • From: Axel Reinhold <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.20->2.6.21 - networking dies after random time
• Next by Date: RE: i386: kernel boot fail at check_irq_resend:69
• Previous by thread: Re: Kernel Bug in 2.4.35 when compiled gcc>=4.2.0 and -march=c3
• Next by thread: tuning CFS: /proc/sys/kernel/sched_granularity_ns question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]