"H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> writes:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C,
>>> though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way.
>>
>> That would require a new compiler, right? I don't think that would
>> make users very happy.
>>
>> Besides the code is not exactly that maintenance intensive and only
>> changes rarely so I don't need a pressing need to rewrite it
>
> No, it would not need a new compiler. All it requires is gcc plus a
> reasonably recent binutils which you need anyway.
There opportunities to enhance this code without writing it in C.
Such as building the code out comprehensible single of subroutines,
with a well defined calling sequence.
The big benefit when you can go to C is that you can include headers
from elsewhere in the kernel and since setup.S is increasingly
becoming optional it has a fixed interface to the rest of
the kernel, so there is much less opportunity for enhancement there.
Eric
-
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]
