On Thursday 07 April 2005 11:16, Renate Meijer wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Btw: I've not investigated which one of the two behaviours is the
> > buggy one -
> > if you know, maybe you or I can report it.
>
> From a strict ISO-C point of view, both are. It's a
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
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
On Thursday 07 April 2005 11:16, Renate Meijer wrote:
On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Blaisorblade wrote:
Btw: I've not investigated which one of the two behaviours is the
buggy one -
if you know, maybe you or I can report it.
From a strict ISO-C point of view, both are. It's a gcc-specific
On Wed, 6 April 2005 21:09:50 +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
>
> I'm reattaching the patch, so that you can look at the changelog (I'm also
> resending it as a separate email so that it is reviewed and possibly merged).
> Basically this is an error in GCC 2 and not in GCC 3:
>
> int [] list = {
>
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 14:04, Renate Meijer wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 April 2005 22:18:26 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote:
> >
> > You did read include/linux/compiler.h, didn't you?
> So instead of applying this patch, simply
>
> #ifdef VERSION_MINOR <
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 20:47, Renate Meijer wrote:
> >> On Apr 5,
On Wed, 6 April 2005 19:58:06 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote:
> 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
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
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 with the gcc-crowd, I can dig up
On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:27:51PM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote:
Is it worth the effort? Not sure. But the "it's old, drop support
for it" argument just doesn't cut it and it doesn't get any better by
repetition.
However, the argument gets better every time
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:27:51PM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote:
>
> Is it worth the effort? Not sure. But the "it's old, drop support
> for it" argument just doesn't cut it and it doesn't get any better by
> repetition.
Exactly, that's why this patch is valid.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe
On Wed, 6 April 2005 14:04:39 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote:
>
> >And you did read this thread as well, right?
> >http://kerneltrap.org/node/4126
>
>
> Things seem to have improved a bit lately. The gcc-3.x series was
> basically not worth it for plain C until 3.3 or so.
>
>
> Yes. You did read
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
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 that code may start suffering from
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 that code may start suffering from
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
On Wed, 6 April 2005 14:04:39 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote:
And you did read this thread as well, right?
http://kerneltrap.org/node/4126
quote
Things seem to have improved a bit lately. The gcc-3.x series was
basically not worth it for plain C until 3.3 or so.
/quote
Yes. You did read
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:27:51PM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote:
Is it worth the effort? Not sure. But the it's old, drop support
for it argument just doesn't cut it and it doesn't get any better by
repetition.
Exactly, that's why this patch is valid.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from
On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:27:51PM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote:
Is it worth the effort? Not sure. But the it's old, drop support
for it argument just doesn't cut it and it doesn't get any better by
repetition.
However, the argument gets better every time a
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 with the gcc-crowd, I can dig up some
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
On Wed, 6 April 2005 19:58:06 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote:
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,
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 20:47, Renate Meijer wrote:
On Apr 5, 2005, at
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 14:04, Renate Meijer wrote:
On Apr 6, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Tue, 5 April 2005 22:18:26 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote:
You did read include/linux/compiler.h, didn't you?
So instead of applying this patch, simply
#ifdef VERSION_MINOR WHATEVER
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 of
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 of gcc
> > (2.95.4
> > for
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 of gcc
(2.95.4
for instance) don't accept va_copy.
Are there many kernels still being built with
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
Uses __va_copy instead of va_copy since some old versions of gcc (2.95.4
for instance) don't accept va_copy.
Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Greg
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 of gcc
(2.95.4
for instance) don't accept va_copy.
Are there many kernels still being built with
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 of gcc
(2.95.4
for instance) don't
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 of
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
--
Uses __va_copy instead of va_copy since some old versions of gcc (2.95.4
for instance) don't accept va_copy.
Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Greg
33 matches
Mail list logo
