James Bottomley wrote:
> We really don't want gcc making assumptions about prototypes ... even if
> it's getting them right in all likelihood (doubtless unprototyped
> assumed functions will become a warning and then an error in later gcc
> versions ...), so this is a better fix
ACK. The fix works here. If you would be so kind, please push it
upstream at your convenience.
gcc-4.X violates the principle of least astonishment over even more
nitnoid matters, but that's another flame for another day.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Tracy | "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get
[email protected] | sucked into jet engines." --Anon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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]
