Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 02 Nov 2000 14:21:31 -0700 | From | Tim Riker <> | Subject | Re: 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 archives?
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 <3A01D463.9ADEF3AF@Rikers.org> 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 - http://rikers.org/ - 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |