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 = {
> [0] = 1,
> [0] = 1
> }
> (I've not tested the above itself, but this should be a stripped down version
> of one of the bugs fixed in the patch).
>
> That sort of code in the UML syscall table is not the safer one - in fact,
> apart this patch for the stable tree, I'm refactoring the UML syscall table
> completely (for 2.6.12 / 2.6.13).
>
> 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.
Your code is at best redundant. And I'd bet beer that it is not what
its author intended to write. So the bug is in GCC 3, imo.
Jörn
--
The cost of changing business rules is much more expensive for software
than for a secretaty.
-- unknown
-
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]
