Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758054AbYG2LlI (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:41:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755716AbYG2Lkz (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:40:55 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:48208 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755385AbYG2Lky (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:40:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:40:29 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Andrew Morton , Linus , Mike Travis Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure Message-ID: <20080729114029.GA3836@elte.hu> References: <20080729180317.94c64634.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080729085815.GA1301@elte.hu> <20080729202731.F18F.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080729202731.F18F.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1258 Lines: 41 * KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > Hi Ingo, > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:00:55 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > > -#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) ({ *get_cpu_mask(cpu); }) > > > > > +#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) (*get_cpu_mask(cpu)) > > > > > > > > hm, i'm wondering - is this a compiler bug? > > > > > > Or maybe a deficiency in such an old compiler (v3.4.5) but the fix > > > makes sense anyway, right? > > > > yeah, i was just wondering. > > in linux/README > > COMPILING the kernel: > > - Make sure you have at least gcc 3.2 available. > For more information, refer to Documentation/Changes. > > So, if 3.4.5 is old, Should we change readme? the fix is simple enough. but the question is, wont it generate huge artificial stackframes with CONFIG_MAXSMP and NR_CPUS=4096? Maybe it is unable to figure out and simplify the arithmetics there - or something like that. Ingo -- 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/