On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:31:39 -0700, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2014-07-05 at 19:20 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote: > > > I don't think %#p is valid so it > > > shouldn't have been set by #. > > > > Huh? As recently as last Wednesday you pointed me at the specific commit > > from Grant that made it valid (GCC format complaints aside). > > Those gcc complaints are precisely the thing > that makes it invalid.
That's the most inane reason ever for saying something is invalid. "The tool doesn't recognise it, there for it is invalid?" Seriously? Tools are just tools. They aren't the source of what is valid/invalid, they only report on what we as engineers have told them to do, because *we* define what should be valid/invalid. If you've got a real reason that explains *why* the tool rejects that construct, then I'd be happy to hear it, but otherwise that argument makes no sense. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
