On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, David Lang wrote:
> Dick Johnson,
> earlier in the discussion there was a post of the 'incompatabilities'
> that were noted and one of the replies to that listed several c99 tools
> available to do the same job with the c99 syntax, so there are at least
> some cases where
:06:28 -0500 (EST)
> From: Richard B. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Tim Riker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Jes Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Linux Kernel Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-t
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Tim Riker wrote:
> Jes,
>
> Hey how's Itanium been lately?
>
> As was mentioned before, there are nonproprietary compilers around as
> well that might be good choices. My point is that the ANSI C steering
> committee is probably a more balanced forum to determine C syntax
Jes,
Hey how's Itanium been lately?
As was mentioned before, there are nonproprietary compilers around as
well that might be good choices. My point is that the ANSI C steering
committee is probably a more balanced forum to determine C syntax than
the gcc team. We should adopt c99 syntax where
> "Tim" == Tim Riker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tim> Alan Cox wrote:
>> > 1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do
>> better > optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no
>> need to argue
>>
>> I think we only care about this when they become free
"Tim" == Tim Riker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim Alan Cox wrote:
1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do
better optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no
need to argue
I think we only care about this when they become free software.
Tim This may be
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Tim Riker wrote:
Jes,
Hey how's Itanium been lately?
As was mentioned before, there are nonproprietary compilers around as
well that might be good choices. My point is that the ANSI C steering
committee is probably a more balanced forum to determine C syntax than
:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Richard B. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tim Riker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jes Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Linux Kernel Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?)
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Tim Riker wrote:
Jes
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, David Lang wrote:
Dick Johnson,
earlier in the discussion there was a post of the 'incompatabilities'
that were noted and one of the replies to that listed several c99 tools
available to do the same job with the c99 syntax, so there are at least
some cases where things
On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 12:34:23AM -0500, Aaron Sethman wrote:
> > SGI's pro64 is free software and AFAIK is able to compile a kernel on IA64.
> > It is also not clear if gcc will ever produce good code on IA64.
>
> Well if its compiling the kernel just fine without alterations to the
> code,
Michael Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> Now people seem to be advocating moving the kernel to use features from C99
> that haven't even been coded yet (which mean when coded using the latest
> codegen as well). Note, I seriously doubt Linus will want a flag day (ie,
> after a given
Michael Meissner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
Now people seem to be advocating moving the kernel to use features from C99
that haven't even been coded yet (which mean when coded using the latest
codegen as well). Note, I seriously doubt Linus will want a flag day (ie,
after a given kernel
On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 12:34:23AM -0500, Aaron Sethman wrote:
SGI's pro64 is free software and AFAIK is able to compile a kernel on IA64.
It is also not clear if gcc will ever produce good code on IA64.
Well if its compiling the kernel just fine without alterations to the
code, then
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Meissner) wrote on 04.11.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 02:24:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Kleen) wrote on 02.11.00 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > again with a different syntax than gcc [I guess it would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Meissner) wrote on 04.11.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 02:24:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Kleen) wrote on 02.11.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
again with a different syntax than gcc [I guess it would have been too
On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 02:24:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Kleen) wrote on 02.11.00 in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > again with a different syntax than gcc [I guess it would have been too easy
> > to just use the gcc syntax]
>
> One of the big problems in C99 was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Kleen) wrote on 02.11.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> again with a different syntax than gcc [I guess it would have been too easy
> to just use the gcc syntax]
One of the big problems in C99 was that there was nobody on the committee
who really understood gcc well, so
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Riker) wrote on 02.11.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 1. C++ style comments
>
> Occurs in over 4000 lines of source and header files. :-( Should be
> converted to ansi c comments? We will probably want to just skirt this
> issue for now as the next rev of ANSI C is likely to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 02.11.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > How can I insure that the largest possible amount of my efforts benefit
> > the community at large? Hopefully this will make it easier to move to
> > C99 or any other future compiler porting project.
>
> The asm I dont
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Hellwig) wrote on 02.11.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > As is being discussed here, C99 has some replacements to the gcc syntax
> > the kernel uses. I believe the C99 syntax will win in the near future,
> > and thus the
Michael Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> May I tentatively suggest that one point at which your resources could
>> productively be applied is towards improving the C99 compliance in gcc?
>> Clearly for the near to medium
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Tim Riker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Agreed. C99 does not replace all the needed gcc features. We should
> > start using the ones that make sense, and push for
> > standardization/documentation on the rest.
>
> > I'm
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Tim Riker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Agreed. C99 does not replace all the needed gcc features. We should
start using the ones that make sense, and push for
standardization/documentation on the rest.
I'm perfectly happy with
Michael Meissner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
May I tentatively suggest that one point at which your resources could
productively be applied is towards improving the C99 compliance in gcc?
Clearly for the near to medium future the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Hellwig) wrote on 02.11.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
As is being discussed here, C99 has some replacements to the gcc syntax
the kernel uses. I believe the C99 syntax will win in the near future,
and thus the gcc syntax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Riker) wrote on 02.11.00 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1. C++ style comments
Occurs in over 4000 lines of source and header files. :-( Should be
converted to ansi c comments? We will probably want to just skirt this
issue for now as the next rev of ANSI C is likely to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 02.11.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How can I insure that the largest possible amount of my efforts benefit
the community at large? Hopefully this will make it easier to move to
C99 or any other future compiler porting project.
The asm I dont know - its
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Kleen) wrote on 02.11.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
again with a different syntax than gcc [I guess it would have been too easy
to just use the gcc syntax]
One of the big problems in C99 was that there was nobody on the committee
who really understood gcc well, so the
On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 02:24:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Kleen) wrote on 02.11.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
again with a different syntax than gcc [I guess it would have been too easy
to just use the gcc syntax]
One of the big problems in C99 was that there
Tim Riker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed. C99 does not replace all the needed gcc features. We should
> start using the ones that make sense, and push for
> standardization/documentation on the rest.
> I'm perfectly happy with this as a long term goal. I'll put what effort
> I can into
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:07:12PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > 1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
> > > optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
> >
> > I think we only care about this when
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> There are two immediate reasons I can come up with for this:
I do not quite follow you on these two reasons. I daily work on an
Alpha machine, which runs under Linux, and I use the Compaq C compiler
since it gives better code on the applications I am
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
There are two immediate reasons I can come up with for this:
I do not quite follow you on these two reasons. I daily work on an
Alpha machine, which runs under Linux, and I use the Compaq C compiler
since it gives better code on the applications I am
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:07:12PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
I think we only care about this when they become
Tim Riker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Agreed. C99 does not replace all the needed gcc features. We should
start using the ones that make sense, and push for
standardization/documentation on the rest.
I'm perfectly happy with this as a long term goal. I'll put what effort
I can into moving
Ted
Agreed. C99 does not replace all the needed gcc features. We should
start using the ones that make sense, and push for
standardization/documentation on the rest.
I'm perfectly happy with this as a long term goal. I'll put what effort
I can into moving that direction without breaking the
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:53:55 -0700
From: Tim Riker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As is being discussed here, C99 has some replacements to the gcc syntax
the kernel uses. I believe the C99 syntax will win in the near future,
and thus the gcc syntax will have to be removed at some point.
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 09:17:44PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > How can I insure that the largest possible amount of my efforts benefit
> > the community at large? Hopefully this will make it easier to move to
> > C99 or any other future compiler porting project.
>
> The asm I dont know - its a
> How can I insure that the largest possible amount of my efforts benefit
> the community at large? Hopefully this will make it easier to move to
> C99 or any other future compiler porting project.
The asm I dont know - its a hard problem. Things like C99 initializers for 2.5
seem quite a
Alan,
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > That need to run Linux - name one ? Why try to solve a problem when it hasn't
> > > happened yet. Let whoever needs to solve it do it.
> >
> > We have proposals here all under NDA. So I won't mention one of them.
> > Perhaps there are some of these folk on the list
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> As is being discussed here, C99 has some replacements to the gcc syntax
> the kernel uses. I believe the C99 syntax will win in the near future,
> and thus the gcc syntax will have to be removed at some point. In the
> interim the kernel will either
ok, a very valid point. The "C++ kernel code" reference is very telling.
(ouch). ;-)
Obviously the changes to support non-gcc compilers should have the goal
of minimal impact on gcc users lives. I recognize that the mainstream
will still use gcc.
Q: Why should we help you make it possible to
> > That need to run Linux - name one ? Why try to solve a problem when it hasn't
> > happened yet. Let whoever needs to solve it do it.
>
> We have proposals here all under NDA. So I won't mention one of them.
> Perhaps there are some of these folk on the list that would like to
> comment?
Date:Thu, 02 Nov 2000 12:31:51 -0700
From: Tim Riker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Me or Alan? I did not mean this as a dig. I feel strongly that one
should have the choice here. I do not choose to enforce my beliefs on
anyone else. I am suggesting only that others should provide
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> You also forgot named structure initializers, but C99 supports them
> again with a different syntax than gcc [I guess it would have been too easy
> to just use the gcc syntax]
The named initializers syntax in C99 is from plan9, besides beeing probably
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:55:55AM -0700, Tim Riker wrote:
> 1. C++ style comments
>
> Occurs in over 4000 lines of source and header files. :-( Should be
> converted to ansi c comments? We will probably want to just skirt this
> issue for now as the next rev of ANSI C is likely to include ANSI
Ben Ford wrote:
>
> Tim Riker wrote:
>
> > Alan Cox wrote:
> > >
> > > > 1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
> > > > optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
> > >
> > > I think we only care about this when they become free
Tim Riker wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > 1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
> > > optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
> >
> > I think we only care about this when they become free software.
>
> This may be your belief, but
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:07:12PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
> > optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
>
> I think we only care about this when they become free software.
SGI's pro64 is free
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > 1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
> > optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
>
> I think we only care about this when they become free software.
This may be your belief, but I would not choose to enforce
> 1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
> optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
I think we only care about this when they become free software.
> 2. There are architectures where gcc is not yet available, but vendor C
> compilers
All,
Alright, I've been lurking long enough on this thread. What say we
consider the option of building the kernel with a compiler other than
gcc? This would imply a slightly different structure to the makefiles
and code.
There are two immediate reasons I can come up with for this:
1. There
All,
Alright, I've been lurking long enough on this thread. What say we
consider the option of building the kernel with a compiler other than
gcc? This would imply a slightly different structure to the makefiles
and code.
There are two immediate reasons I can come up with for this:
1. There
1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
I think we only care about this when they become free software.
2. There are architectures where gcc is not yet available, but vendor C
compilers are.
Alan Cox wrote:
1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
I think we only care about this when they become free software.
This may be your belief, but I would not choose to enforce it on
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:07:12PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
I think we only care about this when they become free software.
SGI's pro64 is free
Tim Riker wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
I think we only care about this when they become free software.
This may be your belief, but I would not
Ben Ford wrote:
Tim Riker wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
I think we only care about this when they become free software.
This may be your
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:55:55AM -0700, Tim Riker wrote:
1. C++ style comments
Occurs in over 4000 lines of source and header files. :-( Should be
converted to ansi c comments? We will probably want to just skirt this
issue for now as the next rev of ANSI C is likely to include ANSI C++
Date:Thu, 02 Nov 2000 12:31:51 -0700
From: Tim Riker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Me or Alan? I did not mean this as a dig. I feel strongly that one
should have the choice here. I do not choose to enforce my beliefs on
anyone else. I am suggesting only that others should provide the
That need to run Linux - name one ? Why try to solve a problem when it hasn't
happened yet. Let whoever needs to solve it do it.
We have proposals here all under NDA. So I won't mention one of them.
Perhaps there are some of these folk on the list that would like to
comment?
Then I
ok, a very valid point. The "C++ kernel code" reference is very telling.
(ouch). ;-)
Obviously the changes to support non-gcc compilers should have the goal
of minimal impact on gcc users lives. I recognize that the mainstream
will still use gcc.
Q: Why should we help you make it possible to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
As is being discussed here, C99 has some replacements to the gcc syntax
the kernel uses. I believe the C99 syntax will win in the near future,
and thus the gcc syntax will have to be removed at some point. In the
interim the kernel will either move
Alan,
Alan Cox wrote:
That need to run Linux - name one ? Why try to solve a problem when it hasn't
happened yet. Let whoever needs to solve it do it.
We have proposals here all under NDA. So I won't mention one of them.
Perhaps there are some of these folk on the list that would
How can I insure that the largest possible amount of my efforts benefit
the community at large? Hopefully this will make it easier to move to
C99 or any other future compiler porting project.
The asm I dont know - its a hard problem. Things like C99 initializers for 2.5
seem quite a
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 09:17:44PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
How can I insure that the largest possible amount of my efforts benefit
the community at large? Hopefully this will make it easier to move to
C99 or any other future compiler porting project.
The asm I dont know - its a hard
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:53:55 -0700
From: Tim Riker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As is being discussed here, C99 has some replacements to the gcc syntax
the kernel uses. I believe the C99 syntax will win in the near future,
and thus the gcc syntax will have to be removed at some point. In
Ted
Agreed. C99 does not replace all the needed gcc features. We should
start using the ones that make sense, and push for
standardization/documentation on the rest.
I'm perfectly happy with this as a long term goal. I'll put what effort
I can into moving that direction without breaking the
68 matches
Mail list logo
