Messages in this thread | | | From | (H. Peter Anvin) | Subject | Re: Migrating to larger numbers | Date | 8 Jun 1999 00:17:39 GMT |
| |
Followup to: <7jhku8$qmv@pell.pell.portland.or.us> By author: o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s (david parsons) In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > >Guess what? We *ALREADY* depend on these -- dev_t in libc6 is a > >64-bit number. > > Libc6 is an wad of regrettable design decisions that, fortunately, > are not yet required to run a Linux kernel. > > Converting dev_t into a 64 bit number (and thus making an earlier > regrettable design decision -- having the filesystem contain magic > numbers for device access -- into a regrettable design decision that's > buttressed by nonstandard GNU constructs) is comparable to putting > the Mississippi in concrete culvert because it overflowed levees > that were put up to make the floodplain safe for subdivisions. >
Oh puh-leeze. C9x is in final balloting, and it is very likely it will pass. gcc has supported a 64-bit type forever; there is no other compiler that can compile libcX for X < 6 either (the headers are full of gcc-specific constructs), so you can go around play with libc4 all you want, but you're still going to need gcc.
This is silly.
-hpa
-- "The user's computer downloads the ActiveX code and simulates a 'Blue Screen' crash, a generally benign event most users are familiar with and that would not necessarily arouse suspicions." -- Security exploit description on http://www.zks.net/p3/how.asp
- 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/
| |