Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




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 gcc
(2.95.4
for instance) don't accept va_copy.

Are there many kernels still being built with 2.95.4? It's quite
antiquated, as far as
i'm aware.

The use of '__' violates compiler namespace.
Why? The symbol is defined by the compiler itself.

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 bitrot and complaining to the compiler guys won't help.

They'll just tell you to RTFM.

If 2.95.4 were not easily
replaced by
a much better version (3.3.x? 3.4.x) I would see a reason to disregard
this, but a fix
merely to satisfy an obsolete compiler?

Let's not flame, Linus Torvalds said "we support GCC 2.95.3, because the newer
versions are worse compilers in most cases".

You make it sound as if you were reciting Ye Holy Scribings. When did Linus Thorvalds say this? In the Redhat-2.96 debacle? Before or after 3.3? I have searched for that quote, but could not find it, and having suffered under 3.1.1, I can well understand his wearyness for the earlier versions.

See

http://kerneltrap.org/node/4126, halfway down.

For the cold, hard facts...

http://www.suse.de/~aj/SPEC/

<snip>

Consider me as having no opinion on this except not wanting to break on purpose Debian users.

If Debian users are stuck with a pretty outdated compiler, i'd seriously suggest migrating to some other distro which allows more freedom. If linux itself is holding them back, there's a need for some serious patching. If there are serious issues in the gcc compiler, which hinder migration to a more up-to-date version our efforts should be directed at solving them in that project, not this.

If you want, submit a patch removing Gcc 2.95.3 from supported versions, and get ready to fight
for it (and probably loose).

I don't fight over things like that, i'm not interested in politics. I merely point out the problem. And yes. I do think support for obsolete compiler should be dumped in favor of a more modern version. Especially if that compiler requires invasions of compiler-namespace. The patch, as presented, is not guaranteed to be portable over versions, and may thus introduce another problem with future versions of GCC.

Also, that GCC has discovered some syscall table errors in UML - I sent a separate patch, which was a bit big sadly (in the reduced version, about 70
lines + description).

I am not quite sure what is intended here... Please explain.

timeo hominem unius libri

Thomas van Aquino

-
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]
  Powered by Linux