| To: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [IDE] Fix build bug |
| From: | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:12:34 +0100 (BST) |
| 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: | <20071025160529.GB24621@linux-mips.org> |
| 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> <20071025160529.GB24621@linux-mips.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Ralf Baechle wrote: > > 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. That would probably be valid (any C standard expert please correct me if I am wrong), but the approach looks like: since we have the capability in the hardware and the OS, then why not actually enforce the rule at the run time as well? Maciej |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Use a sensible tlbex default for unknown CPUs, Maciej W. Rozycki |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.6.24-rc1: au1xxx and clocksource, Ralf Baechle |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [IDE] Fix build bug, Ralf Baechle |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [IDE] Fix build bug, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |