On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 23:44:58 -0400, J.F.Gratton wrote: >Actually, both errors are *not* the same > > >Dan's is due to something missing in the kernel sources; I've read >the thread in the kernel developpers' mailing list, I can't recall >exactly what is missing, but I know that a patch is available, >either for 2.4.20 or the soon-to-come 2.4.21. An acceptable >workaround for now is to downgrade your compiler (3.2.x seems to be >OK with it; I recompiled my kernel using 2.95 and it worked fine).
Everything I've read indicates that it's a case of gcc-3.3 deciding that you REALLY didn't want that function inlined. The patch simply does the same thing I posted here - changes it to a static inline which causes gcc to go ahead and inline it. If you've seen another explination and have a pointer handy, I'd be interested in seeing the discussion. Thanks, Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
