>>>>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:10:13 -0800, James E Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
