From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
To: Tim Riker <Tim@Rikers.org>
Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:46:20 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200011022246.RAA21440@tsx-prime.MIT.EDU> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Tim Riker's message of Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:53:55 -0700, <3A01D463.9ADEF3AF@Rikers.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:53:55 -0700
From: Tim Riker <Tim@Rikers.org>
As is being discussed here, C99 has some replacements to the gcc syntax
the kernel uses. I believe the C99 syntax will win in the near future,
and thus the gcc syntax will have to be removed at some point. In the
interim the kernel will either move towards supporting both, or a
quantum jump to support the new gcc3+ compiler only. I am hoping a
little thought can get put into this such that this change will be less
painful down the road.
That's reasonable as a long-term goal. Keep in mind that though there
have been questions in the past about code correctness assumptions of
kernel versus specific GCC versions. This has been one place where GCC
has tended to blame the kernel developers, and kernel developers have
pointed out (rightly, in my opinion) that the GCC documentation of some
of these features has been less than stellar --- in fact, some would say
non-existent. If it's not documented, then you don't have much moral
ground to stand upon when people complain that the changes you made
breaks things.
So moving to a C99 syntax is useful simply from the point of view that
it's well documented (unlike the register constraints for inline
functions, which still give me a headache whenever I try to look at the
GCC "documentation"). The problem here is that C99 doesn't (as far as I
know) give us everything we need, so simply moving to C99 syntax won't
be sufficient to support propietary C compilers.
There will also be work needed to make sure that a kernel compiled with
gcc 3.x (whenever it's ready) will actually omit code which was intended
by the kernel developers. So we're definitely looking at a 2.5+
project, and one which may actually be fairly high risk; it's certainly
not a trivial task.
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-11-02 22:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 109+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-01 22:40 Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? J . A . Magallon
2000-11-01 22:53 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 1:12 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 2:47 ` J . A . Magallon
2000-11-02 3:26 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 11:40 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-01 22:57 ` Kurt Garloff
2000-11-01 22:47 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-01 22:45 ` Gérard Roudier
2000-11-01 23:07 ` Ben Pfaff
2000-11-01 23:12 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-01 23:11 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-01 23:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-01 23:21 ` Tom Rini
2000-11-01 23:30 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-01 23:36 ` Tom Rini
2000-11-02 0:22 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 4:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2000-11-02 4:59 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-01 23:37 ` Nathan Paul Simons
2000-11-01 23:29 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-01 23:54 ` Cort Dougan
2000-11-01 23:45 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-02 0:00 ` Cort Dougan
2000-11-02 0:54 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 0:21 ` Nathan Paul Simons
2000-11-02 0:11 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-02 0:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2000-11-02 0:59 ` Bill Nottingham
2000-11-02 18:55 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Tim Riker
2000-11-02 19:07 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 19:07 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 19:24 ` Ben Ford
2000-11-02 19:31 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 20:37 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2000-11-02 20:53 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 21:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2000-11-02 21:21 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-04 11:30 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Kai Henningsen
2000-11-02 22:46 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o [this message]
2000-11-02 23:16 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-03 12:02 ` Martin Dalecki
2000-11-02 20:53 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 21:04 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 21:17 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 21:23 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 21:27 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-02 21:41 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 21:43 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-03 7:21 ` Gábor Lénárt
2000-11-04 11:39 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-04 11:37 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Kai Henningsen
2000-11-07 16:33 ` Jes Sorensen
2000-11-07 20:52 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-07 21:06 ` Richard B. Johnson
2000-11-07 22:08 ` David Lang
2000-11-07 21:36 ` Richard B. Johnson
2000-11-08 0:04 ` yodaiken
2000-11-02 19:18 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 19:17 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-02 19:52 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-02 20:00 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 20:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-02 22:23 ` D. Hugh Redelmeier
2000-11-02 22:31 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-03 22:02 ` D. Hugh Redelmeier
2000-11-04 5:34 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Aaron Sethman
2000-11-04 9:18 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-04 10:58 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-05 20:52 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-05 21:06 ` Jakub Jelinek
2000-11-05 21:18 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-05 22:42 ` Marc Lehmann
2000-11-05 23:05 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-06 0:05 ` Marc Lehmann
2000-11-06 8:53 ` Thomas Pornin
2000-11-05 23:26 ` Ion Badulescu
2000-11-06 6:34 ` Eric W. Biederman
2000-11-05 22:46 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-05 22:45 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-05 22:52 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-04 12:20 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-06 17:14 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Ralf Baechle
2000-11-02 20:21 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 20:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2000-11-04 12:24 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-05 3:28 ` Michael Meissner
2000-11-05 13:03 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-03 11:33 ` Thomas Pornin
2000-11-04 11:19 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-02 2:42 ` Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Marc Lehmann
2000-11-02 21:24 ` Gérard Roudier
2000-11-02 22:37 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-02 6:28 ` Jakub Jelinek
2000-11-02 0:11 ` Nathan Paul Simons
2000-11-02 0:06 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-02 0:22 ` Tom Rini
2000-11-02 0:26 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 0:56 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 0:17 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2000-11-02 0:30 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 1:01 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2000-11-01 23:04 ` George
2000-11-02 1:08 ` Jan Dvorak
2000-11-01 23:12 ` Alan Cox
[not found] <fa.g3i0smv.15loso7@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.cjn9ksv.1a0m82t@ifi.uio.no>
2000-11-04 6:19 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Russ Allbery
2000-11-04 8:40 ` Michael Meissner
2000-11-04 8:44 ` Russ Allbery
2000-11-06 12:06 ` Horst von Brand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200011022246.RAA21440@tsx-prime.MIT.EDU \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=Tim@Rikers.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox