| To: | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [IDE] Fix build bug |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:05:29 +0100 |
| Cc: | Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0710251545300.24086@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20071025135334.GA23272@linux-mips.org> <20071025141305.GA11698@uranus.ravnborg.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0710251545300.24086@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) |
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 03:47:16PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > So we can avoid this if we invent a __constinitdata tag that uses > > a new section? > > That would do. > > > I ask mainly to understand this error - not that I am that found > > of the idea. > > Somebody wants to mix up read-only and read/write data in the same > section and GCC quite legitimately complains about it. You cannot have > both at a time. My interpretation is that it would be perfectly ok for a C compiler to do minimal handling of const by only throwing errors for attempted assignments to const objects but otherwise treating them as if they were non-const, that is for example putting them into an r/w section. Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Updated:Error opening framebuffer device/Unknown symbol, Kevin D. Kissell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Use a sensible tlbex default for unknown CPUs, Ralf Baechle |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [IDE] Fix build bug, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [IDE] Fix build bug, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |