Messages in this thread | | | From | Stephen Hemminger <> | Subject | Re: Building 100 kernels; we suck at dependencies and drown in warnings | Date | Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:25:01 -0800 |
| |
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:12:51 +0100 "Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/26/06, Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 22:56 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > Yeah so gcc is not perfect, but that still doesn't change that the > > > intention of the warning and the use of the word "might" is as I said > > > above. > > > > Not a very compelling case for changing the kernel rather than getting > > GCC fixed. > > > > I think we are misunderstanding eachother. Or rather, I seem to have > misread what Nix wrote. > > I saw "(i.e., there's a reason that warning uses the word *might*.)" > and mistakenly read it as a question - "is there a reason that warning > uses the word *might*?". > I then proceeded to answer that question. > When I read your latest mail I then couldn't make sense of things any > longer and went back and read the previous mails again and realized my > mistake. > > My bad, sorry.
I went hunting for this in the GCC bugzilla, and one bug basically said. "Yeah, we know the initialization checking code doesn't work right, but fixing it is too hard" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |