From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80097F6D for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:41:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9640C8F804B for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:41:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id U28FtAperywSuX7I (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:41:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:40:58 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: enable sparse checking Message-ID: <20141024154058.GA10788@infradead.org> References: <54498F4A.9030207@redhat.com> <20141024061718.GA15341@infradead.org> <544A59F7.4070601@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <544A59F7.4070601@sandeen.net> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 08:53:59AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Hm, so you can. > > Ok, so maybe this is dumb, or is it convenient (to work like it does > in the kernel tree?) The cgcc way seems easier for userspace, but I don't really have a strong opinion. It's not like your patch prevents me from using CC=cgcc _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs