From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 19 May 2001 21:11:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 19 May 2001 21:11:31 -0400 Received: from mail.ntplx.net ([204.213.176.10]:24456 "EHLO mail.ntplx.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 May 2001 21:11:21 -0400 Message-ID: <3B0718AB.7E2FF3A2@ntplx.net> Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 21:06:51 -0400 From: Benedict Bridgwater X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15-4mdk i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux-Kernel Subject: Re: Brown-paper-bag bug in m68k, sparc, and sparc64 config files Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > This bug unconditionally disables a configuration question -- and it's > so old that it has propagated across three port files, without either > of the people who did the cut and paste for the latter two noticing it. > > This sort of thing would never ship in CML2, because the compiler > would throw an undefined-symbol warning on BLK_DEV_ST. The temptation > to engage in sarcastic commentary at the expense of people who still > think CML2 is an unnecessary pain in the butt is great. But I will > restrain myself. This time. So a shortcoming of the CML1 tools justifies the CML2 language? I guess the next bug found in the Python2 interpreter will justify writing CML3 in FORTRAN. Ben