can/should we use gcc 3.1 to compile kernels

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 10:36:46PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
> At 22:19 07.06.2002, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 03:44:56PM -0400, Kevin B. Hendricks wrote:
> >
> >> Not too bad warnings-wize excpet for the controlfb.c where it constanly
> >> gave a funny warning about "pasting ->".
> >
> >Sounds right.  I think there was a few other things too..
>
> The warning is correct, pasting "token1" (CNTRL_REG) with "token2" (->)
> makes no sense, usually it's just a ## to much somewhere.
>
> >> It did this for every occurence of the macro CNTRL_REG which I must admit
> >> has two ## which I think gcc was misinterpreting somehow.
> >
> >Well, isn't:
> >#define x(foo) a_## foo ##_b
> >A semi-common thing, like we do in indirect_pci.c ?  Or was it something
> >different?
>
> Think about preprocessing tokens! If foo is "->" the ## make no sense at
> all, cause "a_", "->" and "_b" are 3 separate preprocessing tokens, no need
> to paste them together.

Ah.  Got a patch? :)

> >> Other than that just the occaissioanal wanring about unused variables and
> >> things like that.
> >
> >Lots of the USB stuff uses __FUNCTION__ which gcc-3.1 isn't happy
> >about.
>
> It's not __FUNCTION__ per se that gcc is unhappy about, but string
> concatenation with it. So instead of printk ( __FUNCTION__ "text %d",
> value) use printk (" %s, text %d", __FUNCTION__, value). No big deal.
>
> I think current 3.2 already refuses to compile that.

I thought it was 3.1 that gave a big warning about __FUNCTION__ being
depreciated entirely and 3.2 which just removed __FUNCTION__ at all.  Or
have things been changed abit?

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/