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.
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
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]
