lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Building 100 kernels; we suck at dependencies and drown in warnings
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-27 18:27    [W:0.078 / U:0.680 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site