Messages in this thread | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | Date | Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:03:12 +0400 (MSD) | Subject | Re: egcs-1.1.2 ping bug also causes miscompilation of pcbit isdn drive |
| |
In <199906171219.IAA12599@pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl> Horst von Brand (vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote: HB> "Khimenko Victor" <khim@sch57.msk.ru> said:
HB> [...]
>> And here we have MAJOR problem: there are NO easy replacements for some >> such things used in linux kernel. Yes, it's not portable but what's can be >> done ? EVEN if kernel is broken just stating that "such code is not portable >> and so it's not our problem" is NOT ENOUGH. Some workaround is needed. And >> workaround without speed loss and supported on all supported platforms !
HB> Sorry, I can't agree here. If you are fooling around with operating systems HB> (those things usually depend intimately on the hardware they run on), a HB> certain amount of pain caused by non-portability at the source level has to HB> be taken into account.
Of course ! No arguments here. But if changes in egcs trigger some problems them some way to change sources MUST be provided.
Typical discussion between Linus and egcs folks:
Linus: "Egcs x.y.z miscompiles (does not allow, etc.) the following consturiction: <construction>". Egcs-folks: "<construction> is wrong in first place and should not work at all; it worked with gcc 2.7.2.3 by coincident". Linus: "No problems, I'm linux kernel guru, not egcs/gcc-guru. What's the correct replacement for <construction> in egcs x.y.z ?" Egcs-folks: "<construction> was wrong in first place and there are no replacement in egcs x.y.z" Linux: "<construction> WORKED with gcc 2.7.2.3. In DOES NOT work with egcs x.y.z . What's the replacement ?" Egcs-folks: "<construction> was wrong in first place and there are no replacement in egcs x.y.z"
This is UNAPPROPRIATE ! EVEN if construction was wrong and worked (on just a few millions of computers :-) by coincident it's not excuse to not give any replacement at all !
P.S. There are sometimes need to replace some constructions with different ones but it's not a problem: as you rightfully noted it's expected pain. Scenario described above -- that's why Linus is so angry on egcs folks ... Linus is willing to change kernel sources to accomodate changes in egcs. He just not ready to scan egcs sources to find a replacement ... He is linux kernel guru, not egcs/gcc guru ...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |