On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:53:03AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> 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.
I think the most important reason for portable code is that new readers
are more familiar with effects of the code.
--
Heikki Orsila Barbie's law:
[email protected] "Math is hard, let's go shopping!"
http://www.iki.fi/shd
-
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]
