On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 01:04:46AM +0000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By author: Matthias-Christian Ott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > Hi!
> > But maybe gcc 4 will get different later, so I think this patch makes sense.
> >
>
> No, it doesn't. You fork when you have a reason. Eager forking is
> *BAD*.
As I already said in this thread:
The currently used file for gcc 4 is compiler-gcc+.h, not
compiler-gcc3.h .
And the current setup is to have one file for every major number of gcc.
I have no strong opinion whether this approach or the approach of one
file for all gcc versions is better - but with the current approach,
everything else than a separate file for gcc 4 wasn't logical.
I can offer the following choices:
- please apply this compiler-gcc4.h patch
- let me send a patch merging all compiler-gcc*.h files into one
compiler-gcc.h file
- let me send a patch merging all compiler-gcc*.h files back into
compiler.h
> -hpa
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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/
