| To: | Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [IDE] Fix build bug |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Fri, 2 Nov 2007 12:34:30 +0000 |
| Cc: | 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, Martijn Uffing <mp3project@sarijopen.student.utwente.nl> |
| In-reply-to: | <200711011843.16894.vda.linux@googlemail.com> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20071025135334.GA23272@linux-mips.org> <200710301134.30087.vda.linux@googlemail.com> <20071030124155.GA7582@linux-mips.org> <200711011843.16894.vda.linux@googlemail.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) |
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 06:43:16PM +0000, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > We can intrduce new, ro sections or teach gcc that combining const objects > into > non-ro sections is not a crime. I wonder why it currently disallows that. > (And it does it only _somethimes_, const pointers happily go into rw > sections!) The pattern seems to be that const-ness of the first object placed into a particular section determines the writability of that section. If that conflicts with the requirements for a later object such as a non-const object into a section r/o gcc doesn't consider making the section r/w but throws an error instead. Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: NPTL support, Markus Gothe |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Oops with kernel 2.6.8, Ralf Baechle |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [IDE] Fix build bug, Denys Vlasenko |
| Next by Thread: | NPTL support, veerasena reddy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |