Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?)

[Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com>]

Tim Riker wrote:
> 
> ok, a very valid point. The "C++ kernel code" reference is very telling.
> (ouch). ;-)
> 
> Obviously the changes to support non-gcc compilers should have the goal
> of minimal impact on gcc users lives. I recognize that the mainstream
> will still use gcc.
> 
> Q: Why should we help you make it possible to use a proprietary C
> compiler?
> 
> This is right on the money. I hope to show that is is all part of "World
> Domination". ;-) I can easily see other paths to get there though, so
> why this one?
> 
> 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

No I think that there will be just a switch for gcc along the lines of
gcc --forget-our-extensions-use-c99-for-this-file. Gnu code is common
enough to
justify this. And nothing will change in old code ;-).
It's only recently that the G++ people got around to throw away some
extensions (on the C++ part).
-
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/