linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fixes for uaccess.h with gcc >= 4.0.1

To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: Fixes for uaccess.h with gcc >= 4.0.1
From: "P. Christeas" <p_christ@hol.gr>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:50:53 +0200
Cc: MIPS Linux List <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
In-reply-to: <20060123153715.GC18665@linux-mips.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20060123150507.GA18665@linux-mips.org> <200601231718.40581.p_christ@hol.gr> <20060123153715.GC18665@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: KMail/1.9
On Monday 23 January 2006 5:37 pm, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:18:38PM +0200, P. Christeas wrote:
> > On Monday 23 January 2006 5:05 pm, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> > > I'd appreciate if somebody with gcc 4.0.1 could test this kernel patch
> > > below.
> > >
> > >   Ralf
> >
> > Is that for 2.4?
>
> 2.4 is a no go for all architectures with gcc >= 4.0.0 and in case of MIPS
> even gcc 3.4 is somewhat dubious.
>
> > 2.6 doesn't seem to have that problem..
>
> It's probably a matter of configuration then.  Basically with our current
> uaccess.h and gcc >= 4.0.1 the attempt to pass a pointer to a const
> variable as the pointer argument to get_user or __get_user will blow up.
> It's always been a bug - but gcc before 4.0.1 were accepting this
> silently.
>
>   Ralf

I 've been compiling with gcc 4.0.2 (my tree is Linus') and haven't seen any 
message like that. It all compiles fine. Is there a point in testing your 
patch as well?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>