Re: what exactly is a "patch," anyway?

["Michael N. Moran" <mike at mnmoran dot org>]

Dan Kegel wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >   however, in looking at those arch-dependent makefiles, it wasn't
> > clear to me that setting the compile options was an actual error.  i
> > had assumed that, since the kernel programmers put that in, it was
> > there for a purpose, so it wasn't really a bug.
>
> I only want to fix it if it's a bug.

Its only a bug for the latest versions of GCC.

Now, how can we determine the GCC version in
the "arch/{arm,sh}/Makefile" to make the kernel
happy for all versions of GCC. Suggestions?

My guess is that we're suffering because "normal" (sane)
kernel builders haven't tried the bleeding edge GCC ;-)

--
Michael N. Moran           (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct.         (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144    http://mnmoran.org

"So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains
 and we never even know we have the key."
The Eagles, "Already Gone"

The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1



------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com