FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt

[Brian Budge]

Doesn't it seem like fixing the broken scripts might be better?  And
if not, why not?

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> Bah!  here is the non bouncing version (I hope).
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: FW: gcc4.4.1 related doubt
> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:38:20 -0700
> From: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
> To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
> CC: trisha yad <trisha1march@gmail.com>, Jie Zhang <jie@codesourcery.com>,
>  gcc-help@gnu.org, arm-gnu@codesourcery.com
>
> On 03/26/2010 10:27 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> trisha yad<trisha1march@gmail.com>  writes:
>>
>>> arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -fno-optimize-sibling-calls -O2 test.c
>>> I can see Function name  Convert to
>>> 0000842c t T.12
>>
>> You still haven't explained what is wrong with that symbol.  Why does
>> it matter?
>
> I thought I already said this, but here it is again:
>
> Some broken Linux kernel build scripts flag the presence of these
> symbols a something very bad.  If you try building a kernel containing
> these scripts, you might be lead to think that the end of the world is near.
>
> Obviously the way to fix the problem is to change GCC so it doesn't
> trigger the emission of these messages in the defective kernels. :-)
>
>
> David Daney
>