On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:12:51 +0100
"Jesper Juhl" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/26/06, Lee Revell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 22:56 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > Yeah so gcc is not perfect, but that still doesn't change that the
> > > intention of the warning and the use of the word "might" is as I said
> > > above.
> >
> > Not a very compelling case for changing the kernel rather than getting
> > GCC fixed.
> >
>
> I think we are misunderstanding eachother. Or rather, I seem to have
> misread what Nix wrote.
>
> I saw "(i.e., there's a reason that warning uses the word *might*.)"
> and mistakenly read it as a question - "is there a reason that warning
> uses the word *might*?".
> I then proceeded to answer that question.
> When I read your latest mail I then couldn't make sense of things any
> longer and went back and read the previous mails again and realized my
> mistake.
>
> My bad, sorry.
I went hunting for this in the GCC bugzilla, and one bug basically said.
"Yeah, we know the initialization checking code doesn't work right, but
fixing it is too hard"
-
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 the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
