On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 10:45:52AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> Yes it is. It's perfectly logical: gcc+ contains the "going forward"
> version, and until it supports some feature that isn't in all versions
> of gcc4, it's the right thing to do.
>...
It doesn't seem to be logical for everyone whether compiler-gcc+.h or
compiler-gcc3.h is used for gcc 4.0 ...
Perhaps compiler-gcc+.h (which wasn't always updated when
compiler-gcc3.h was updated) should be removed?
> -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/
