Re: PATCH: Fix 2.6 kernel ia64 directives

From: David Mosberger <davidm_at_napali.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 2005-02-10 08:11:54
>>>>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:10:13 -0800, James E Wilson <wilson@tuliptree.org> said:

  Jim> It is important that the assembler give an error if a problem is
  Jim> detected, as otherwise a serious latent bug may go unfixed.  I we give a
  Jim> warning, then people may not notice it and fix their code.

  Jim> However, I do understand that there is some inconvenience here.  I have
  Jim> no problem with emitting a warning temporarily to give people a chance
  Jim> to migrate.

Yes, that's really all I'm asking for.

I'm _very_ happy to see that the unwind directives are getting
sanity-checking.  Not having this has bitten me before on more than
one occasion and we all know that the number of people that check
unwind-info with readelf -u can be counted on one hand, so like you
say, that's very important.  But we can't expect existing code to get
fixed over night, hence we should allow for a grace period.  If the
code doesn't get fixed during that period, at least we can say "you
were warned"...

  Jim> In fact, I believe I will have to use a warning for now because
  Jim> these changes break gcc -pg, and this is not easy to fix as it
  Jim> will also require glibc changes.  I already have a patch from
  Jim> HJ to do this, I just need to review it.

OK, that sounds great.

Thanks,

	--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Feb 9 16:12:10 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:35 EST