[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:0.023 / U:61.532 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site