From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Wilson Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 04:26:24 +0000 Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] kernel update (second patch relative to 2.4.2) Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >Yes. I reported a bug related to stop bit generation a week ago or so >to both you and Bernd. It was only 3 days ago, but yeah, that needs to be fixed as soon as possible. >a fix already. It worries me that you let C++ EH hold up this bug >fix. The unwinder in gcc is incomplete. It will certainly fail when I agree that the gcc unwinder is complete. However, I don't think you are being fair when considering C++ EH. You personally care only about the kernel unwinder. But there are probably more people who care about C++ EH than whether the kernel can use an unwinder. Also, there are FSF rules and regulations that I need to follow here. Official FSF policy is that I can't check in a patch that causes regressions to the compiler. There are of course exceptions to the rule, but they have to be used very carefully. C++ EH regressions count in this consideration. Kernel unwinder regressions do not. Thus it is best if I fix C++ EH regressions before checking in the patch. Jim