linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [IDE] Fix build bug

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>