On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:00:09PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Do you imply that if we see asm or __asm__ in user space headers we ougth
> to warn about it?
> Seems at least sensible to me but if we introduce such a check we should
> kill all offenders first - which Mike's patches seems to
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:34:50PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 06:33:28PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
> > headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
>
> We should not allow inline assemly
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:34:50PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 06:33:28PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
> > headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
>
> We should not allow inline assemly
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 06:33:28PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
> headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
We should not allow inline assemly in the exported part of userspace headers
at all. These headers must only
On Monday 18 June 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:24:24AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:27:15AM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> If we expect userspace apps to include them, then I would vote for no,
> not for anything outside of #ifdef __KERNEL__ in exported headers. Keep
> in mind also that C++ apps may need to include these as well and those
>
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:24:24AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
> > > headers can be used with gcc's
Robert Hancock wrote:
>
> If we expect userspace apps to include them, then I would vote for no,
> not for anything outside of #ifdef __KERNEL__ in exported headers. Keep
> in mind also that C++ apps may need to include these as well and those
> extensions don't always play well in C++ mode.
David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:24 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
headers can be used with gcc's
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:24 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
> > > headers can be used with gcc's
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:24 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
hmm
David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:24 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
headers can be used with gcc's
Robert Hancock wrote:
If we expect userspace apps to include them, then I would vote for no,
not for anything outside of #ifdef __KERNEL__ in exported headers. Keep
in mind also that C++ apps may need to include these as well and those
extensions don't always play well in C++ mode. (Last
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:24:24AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:27:15AM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
If we expect userspace apps to include them, then I would vote for no,
not for anything outside of #ifdef __KERNEL__ in exported headers. Keep
in mind also that C++ apps may need to include these as well and those
extensions
On Monday 18 June 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:24:24AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 06:33:28PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
We should not allow inline assemly in the exported part of userspace headers
at all. These headers must only
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:34:50PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 06:33:28PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
We should not allow inline assemly in the
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:34:50PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 06:33:28PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
We should not allow inline assemly in the
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:00:09PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
Do you imply that if we see asm or __asm__ in user space headers we ougth
to warn about it?
Seems at least sensible to me but if we introduce such a check we should
kill all offenders first - which Mike's patches seems to trigger
On Sunday 17 June 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that
> > > these headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
> >
> > hmm
On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
> > headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
>
> hmm but the kernel doesn't use -std=c99...
The byteorder
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
> headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
hmm but the kernel doesn't use -std=c99...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/include/asm-arm/byteorder.h b/include/asm-arm/byteorder.h
index e6f7fcd..39105dc 100644
---
This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff --git a/include/asm-arm/byteorder.h b/include/asm-arm/byteorder.h
index e6f7fcd..39105dc 100644
---
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
hmm but the kernel doesn't use -std=c99...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
hmm but the kernel doesn't use -std=c99...
The byteorder headers
On Sunday 17 June 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that
these headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
hmm but the kernel
28 matches
Mail list logo
