[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Migrating to larger numbers
Followup to:  <7jhku8$>
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:
> >
> >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.


"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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.081 / U:8.432 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site