From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262805AbTJYU4W (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:56:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262835AbTJYU4W (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:56:22 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:39335 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262805AbTJYU4V (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:56:21 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:56:17 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: John Levon Cc: Andi Kleen , Jeff Garzik , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [AMD64 1/3] fix C99-style declarations Message-ID: <20031025205617.GD27754@wotan.suse.de> References: <20031025182824.GA12117@gtf.org> <20031025202750.GC27754@wotan.suse.de> <20031025204717.GA78345@compsoc.man.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031025204717.GA78345@compsoc.man.ac.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 09:47:17PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 10:27:50PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > 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") > > Sorry, that is bullshit. The change was entirely designed to prevent > people on such architectures hacking general files where there *do* > exist older compilers, to avoid breakage being introduced without it > being flagged. I don't think it makes much difference. People hacking on one architecture break other architectures all the time for various reasons, e.g. the implicit includes in different architectures vary widely. The few people left who use 2.95 will just have to live with occasional breakage when they insist on using a non standards compliant compiler. > > This has happened more than once in the tree. > > When all the architectures have a minimum gcc requirement that accepts > mixed code and declarations by default, it can be removed ... Would be my prefered solution. Discourage 2.95. Sooner or later we have to do that anyways when a bug in 2.95 is found that breaks code (has happened with all gccs so far). Sooner would be better, as supporting 2.95 seems to be already a significant mainteance burden. -Andi