Re: Use of C99 int types

2005-04-07 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 6, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote: On Apr 06, 2005, at 07:41, Renate Meijer wrote: On Apr 6, 2005, at 12:11 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote: Please don't remove Linux-Kernel from the CC, I think this is an important discussion. GAAH!!! Read my lips!!! Quit removing Linux-Kernel from the CC

Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

2005-04-07 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Blaisorblade wrote: For Jörn Engel and the issue he opened: at the end of this mail I describe another bug caught by 2.95 and not by 3.x. On Tuesday 05 April 2005 22:18, Renate Meijer wrote: On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Blaisorblade wrote: On Tuesday 05 April 2005 20

Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

2005-04-07 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Blaisorblade wrote: For Jörn Engel and the issue he opened: at the end of this mail I describe another bug caught by 2.95 and not by 3.x. On Tuesday 05 April 2005 22:18, Renate Meijer wrote: On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Blaisorblade wrote: On Tuesday 05 April 2005 20

Re: Use of C99 int types

2005-04-07 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 6, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote: On Apr 06, 2005, at 07:41, Renate Meijer wrote: On Apr 6, 2005, at 12:11 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote: Please don't remove Linux-Kernel from the CC, I think this is an important discussion. GAAH!!! Read my lips!!! Quit removing Linux-Kernel from the CC

Re: [stable] Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

2005-04-06 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 6, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Jörn Engel wrote: On Wed, 6 April 2005 19:29:46 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote: I think its worth the time and trouble to take this up with the gcc crowd. So if you could provide a list of things 3.3 misses, i'm sure the gcc-crowd would like it. If you volunteer to do work

Re: [stable] Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

2005-04-06 Thread Renate Meijer
t;it's old, drop support for it", but rely on the "dont rely on compiler internals or at least stick them on one place where everyone can find them easily, instead of peppering the entire codebase with them" argument. Regards, Renate Meijer. - To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

2005-04-06 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 6, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Jörn Engel wrote: On Tue, 5 April 2005 22:18:26 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote: If a function is prefixed with a double underscore, this implies the function is internal to the compiler, and may change at any time, since it's not governed by some sort of standard. Hence

Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

2005-04-06 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 6, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Jörn Engel wrote: On Tue, 5 April 2005 22:18:26 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote: If a function is prefixed with a double underscore, this implies the function is internal to the compiler, and may change at any time, since it's not governed by some sort of standard. Hence

Re: [stable] Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

2005-04-06 Thread Renate Meijer
for it, but rely on the dont rely on compiler internals or at least stick them on one place where everyone can find them easily, instead of peppering the entire codebase with them argument. Regards, Renate Meijer. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body

Re: [stable] Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

2005-04-06 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 6, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Jörn Engel wrote: On Wed, 6 April 2005 19:29:46 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote: I think its worth the time and trouble to take this up with the gcc crowd. So if you could provide a list of things 3.3 misses, i'm sure the gcc-crowd would like it. If you volunteer to do work

Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

2005-04-05 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Blaisorblade wrote: On Tuesday 05 April 2005 20:47, Renate Meijer wrote: On Apr 5, 2005, at 6:48 PM, Greg KH wrote: -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. -- Uses __va_copy instead of va_copy since some old versions

Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

2005-04-05 Thread Renate Meijer
are fixing a bug that is better solved by downloading a more recent version of gcc. Regards, Renate Meijer. - 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.h

Re: Use of C99 int types

2005-04-05 Thread Renate Meijer
, that cunning plan is undone. Furthermore, I think it's wise to convince the community that if not needed, integers should not be specified by any specific width. Regards, Renate Meijer. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL

Re: Use of C99 int types

2005-04-05 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 4, 2005, at 10:57 PM, Al Viro wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:30:52PM +0200, Renate Meijer wrote: When used improperly. The #define Al Viro objected to, is objectionable. It's highly misleading, as Mr. Viro pointed out. I fail to see where he made comments on stdint.h as such. Comments

Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

2005-04-05 Thread Renate Meijer
are fixing a bug that is better solved by downloading a more recent version of gcc. Regards, Renate Meijer. - 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

Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

2005-04-05 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Blaisorblade wrote: On Tuesday 05 April 2005 20:47, Renate Meijer wrote: On Apr 5, 2005, at 6:48 PM, Greg KH wrote: -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. -- Uses __va_copy instead of va_copy since some old versions

Re: Use of C99 int types

2005-04-05 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 4, 2005, at 10:57 PM, Al Viro wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:30:52PM +0200, Renate Meijer wrote: When used improperly. The #define Al Viro objected to, is objectionable. It's highly misleading, as Mr. Viro pointed out. I fail to see where he made comments on stdint.h as such. Comments

Re: Use of C99 int types

2005-04-05 Thread Renate Meijer
, that cunning plan is undone. Furthermore, I think it's wise to convince the community that if not needed, integers should not be specified by any specific width. Regards, Renate Meijer. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Use of C99 int types

2005-04-04 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Dag Arne Osvik wrote: Renate Meijer wrote: On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:08 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote: On Apr 03, 2005, at 16:25, Kenneth Johansson wrote: But is this not exactly what Dag Arne Osvik was trying to do ?? uint_fast32_t means that we want at least 32 bits but it's OK

Re: Use of C99 int types

2005-04-04 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:08 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote: On Apr 03, 2005, at 16:25, Kenneth Johansson wrote: But is this not exactly what Dag Arne Osvik was trying to do ?? uint_fast32_t means that we want at least 32 bits but it's OK with more if that happens to be faster on this particular architecture.

Re: Use of C99 int types

2005-04-04 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Dag Arne Osvik wrote: Renate Meijer wrote: On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:08 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote: On Apr 03, 2005, at 16:25, Kenneth Johansson wrote: But is this not exactly what Dag Arne Osvik was trying to do ?? uint_fast32_t means that we want at least 32 bits but it's OK

Re: Use of C99 int types

2005-04-03 Thread Renate Meijer
s kind of overly explicit typing. It's much easier to make assumptions about integer size unwittingly than it is to avoid them. I used to assume (for instance) that sizeof(int) == sizeof(long) == sizeof(void *) at one point in my career. Fortunately, reality soon asserted itself again. Regard

Re: Use of C99 int types

2005-04-03 Thread Renate Meijer
explicit typing. It's much easier to make assumptions about integer size unwittingly than it is to avoid them. I used to assume (for instance) that sizeof(int) == sizeof(long) == sizeof(void *) at one point in my career. Fortunately, reality soon asserted itself again. Regards, Renate Meijer

Re: [RFC] : remove unreliable, unused and unmainained arch from kernel.

2005-04-01 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 1, 2005, at 3:09 PM, linux-os wrote: [PATCH snipped] Cruel joke. Now 80 percent of the Intel clones won't boot. Those are the ones that run industry, you know, the stuff that is necessary to earn money. Without i386 support, you don't have any embedded systems. You need to use the garbage

Re: [RFC] : remove unreliable, unused and unmainained arch from kernel.

2005-04-01 Thread Renate Meijer
On Apr 1, 2005, at 3:09 PM, linux-os wrote: [PATCH snipped] Cruel joke. Now 80 percent of the Intel clones won't boot. Those are the ones that run industry, you know, the stuff that is necessary to earn money. Without i386 support, you don't have any embedded systems. You need to use the garbage

Re: forkbombing Linux distributions

2005-03-28 Thread Renate Meijer
On Mar 28, 2005, at 9:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 28, 2005, at 9:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I already posted one, posts ago. [snip] Imporved version: [snip] char *dummy = (char *)malloc(1); That cast is not supposed to be there, is it? (To pretake it: it's bad.) What is so bad

Re: forkbombing Linux distributions

2005-03-28 Thread Renate Meijer
On Mar 28, 2005, at 9:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 28, 2005, at 9:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I already posted one, posts ago. [snip] Imporved version: [snip] char *dummy = (char *)malloc(1); That cast is not supposed to be there, is it? (To pretake it: it's bad.) What is so bad