Satyam Sharma wrote: >> >> Sorry, that's just utter crap. Linux isn't written in some mythical C >> which only exists in standard document, it is written in a particular >> subset of GNU C. "volatile" is well enough defined in that context, it >> is just frequently misused. > > Of course, volatile _is_ defined (well, _anything_ that is implemented > _is_ defined, after all) in the context of GNU C, and if you're saying > that the kernel (and all its subsystems) is and should _continue_ to > be (the purpose of this document) written within that context, then > that's your opinion and I would not disagree with you. If you do > prefer to continue using that dialect, then I wouldn't stop you either. >
This isn't just an opinion, this is the language the Linux kernel is written in today, and has been for the duration of its 16-year existence. It contains *many* constructs that are not defined in, for example, C99, and it would in fact be impossible to write the Linux kernel using only C99-compliant constructs. > Personally, I'd prefer writing in a slightly more portable / larger > context (using well-defined and understood APIs), thank you, and > hope you'd allow me to do so myself. There is no such "slightly more portable/larger context/well-defined and understood" context in existence. If you think so, you're deluding yourself. -hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/