netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: r8169.c

To: Francois Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: r8169.c
From: Dorn Hetzel <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:36:14 -0500
Cc: Dorn Hetzel <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20041125205411.GA3204@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20041119162920.GA26836@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041119201203.GA13522@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041120003754.GA32133@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041120002946.GA18059@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041122181307.GA3625@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041123144901.GA19005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041123194740.GA32210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041125220233.GA23850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041125205411.GA3204@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
It did *build* well enough not to blow up the kernel build with 2.95.4,
it just failed in use...

On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 09:54:11PM +0100, Francois Romieu wrote:
> Dorn Hetzel <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :
> [...]
> > I went ahead and remotely rebuilt using gcc 2.95.4 and upon reboot it
> > worked long enough to ssh in and then it failed.  So it sounds like the
> > version of gcc DOES make a difference :)
> 
> Ok, I'll have to audit the driver for the typical inline assembler +
> arithmetic ops which 2.95.x dislikes.
> 
> --
> Ueimor

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>