On Jul 16, 2006, at 1:10 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Why it is not obvious and I say the patch is incorrect.
Oh did I forget (again) to say you really should be posting patches to the gcc-patches mailing list. If you want them be included. And I still say the patch is incorrect. I already explained why I thought it was incorrect as linux.h should not be included. Also the comment in your patch is incorrect as the definition comes from config/linux.h and not from config/i386/linux.h. -- Pinski
