From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:14:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:13:58 -0400 Received: from t2.redhat.com ([199.183.24.243]:19191 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:13:45 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3 01/15/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: <200108302156.f7ULujo24456@oboe.it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: <200108302156.f7ULujo24456@oboe.it.uc3m.es> To: ptb@it.uc3m.es Cc: "Herbert Rosmanith" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@cambridge.redhat.com Subject: Re: [IDEA+RFC] Possible solution for min()/max() war Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:13:31 +0100 Message-ID: <11888.999209611@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ptb@it.uc3m.es said: > You got me curious enough to try it. It compiles and links fine with > -O1 and higher under > gcc version 2.95.2 20000220 (Debian GNU/Linux) > gcc version 2.8.1 > gcc version 2.7.2.3 Oh well, then it _must_ be safe then - gcc has never changed unspecified behaviour on us before, has it? The gcc engineer who took one look at the __buggy_udelay cruft, raised his eyebrows, swore and wandered off muttering must just have been having a bad day or something. -- dwmw2