Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:43:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:43:28 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:28944 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:43:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:40:54 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Tom Rini cc: Jeff Garzik , , Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix fs/fat/inode.c when compiled with gcc-3.0.x In-Reply-To: <20020111181714.GR13931@cpe-24-221-152-185.az.sprintbbd.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Tom Rini wrote: > > After talking with Franz Sirl abit (and reading the thread on the > patch), the fix is in the gcc-3.1 branch (so gcc-3.1.0 will work), and > the patch can be applied to 3.0.x Ok. > So should we workaround this now in 2.4.x or no? I'll apply it to the 2.5.x tree - it's not as if it can hurt anything (it will actually generate better code, as a signed divide is slightly more complex than just a shift due to rounding issues, and gcc doesn't know that the inode length will always be non-negative). Whether it is worth working around in 2.4.x I don't have any real opinion on, but I doubt it is worthwhile to compile 2.4.x with gcc-3.0.x anyway. But again, applying it won't hurt. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/