From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262797AbTJYU1x (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:27:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262802AbTJYU1x (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:27:53 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:31902 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262797AbTJYU1v (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:27:51 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:27:50 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Jeff Garzik Cc: ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [AMD64 1/3] fix C99-style declarations Message-ID: <20031025202750.GC27754@wotan.suse.de> References: <20031025182824.GA12117@gtf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031025182824.GA12117@gtf.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 02:28:24PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Although the compiler has always supposed C99 style, I feel that until > the kernel as a whole moves to C99 style, such code reduces portability > to other compilers. In particular, I am willing to bet Intel's Yamhill > will eventually be supported by the x86-64 code, and non-gcc compilers > will eventually be used to build this platform. The intel compiler supports C99 just fine. x86-64 always used C99 and there is no x86-64 compiler around that doesn't support it. I must say I was somewhat pissed off that someone added that nasty warning to the toplevel Makefile just to comfort some gcc 2.95 users on i386 ("all world is a i386") I have enough trouble just to get the essential bug/compilefixes accepted by Linus, so I see no chance to get such things in currently. -Andi