H. Peter Anvin wrote: [slightly off topic: GCCisms in Linux kernel] > It contains *many* constructs that are not defined in, for > example, C99, and it would in fact be impossible to write the Linux > kernel using only C99-compliant constructs. True. On the other hand, it is possible to keep large parts of the kernel independent of compiler implementation details. And it is not only possible but also beneficial, e.g. because the compiler's implementation changes over time. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -=-= -==-- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: Heikki Orsila <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- References:
- [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: "Satyam Sharma" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: "Satyam Sharma" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: "Satyam Sharma" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] spelling fixes: arch/frv/
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- Index(es):
 |