[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: non-gcc linux?
Do you or anyone else on the list recall why this decision was made? Can
you recall around when it was made so I can dig out the history from the

I would be eager to convert everything over to the C99 syntax, test the
heck out of it and submit the patch. Obviously this is wasted effort if
there is a good reason to continue using the gcc syntax.

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> In article <> you wrote:
> > As is being discussed here, C99 has some replacements to the gcc syntax
> > the kernel uses. I believe the C99 syntax will win in the near future,
> > and thus the gcc syntax will have to be removed at some point. In the
> > interim the kernel will either move towards supporting both, or a
> > quantum jump to support the new gcc3+ compiler only. I am hoping a
> > little thought can get put into this such that this change will be less
> > painful down the road.
> BTW: the C99 syntax for named structure initializers is supported from
> gcc 2.7.<something> on. But a policy decision has been take to use
> gcc syntax in kernel.

Tim Riker - - short SIGs! <g>
All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten
... if I'd just been paying attention.
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 12:45    [W:0.076 / U:0.608 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site