Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 02 Nov 2000 16:16:01 -0700 | From | Tim Riker <> | Subject | Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) |
| |
Ted
Agreed. C99 does not replace all the needed gcc features. We should start using the ones that make sense, and push for standardization/documentation on the rest.
I'm perfectly happy with this as a long term goal. I'll put what effort I can into moving that direction without breaking the existing world as we know it.
Tim
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" wrote: > > Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:53:55 -0700 > From: Tim Riker <Tim@Rikers.org> > > 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. > > That's reasonable as a long-term goal. Keep in mind that though there > have been questions in the past about code correctness assumptions of > kernel versus specific GCC versions. This has been one place where GCC > has tended to blame the kernel developers, and kernel developers have > pointed out (rightly, in my opinion) that the GCC documentation of some > of these features has been less than stellar --- in fact, some would say > non-existent. If it's not documented, then you don't have much moral > ground to stand upon when people complain that the changes you made > breaks things. > > So moving to a C99 syntax is useful simply from the point of view that > it's well documented (unlike the register constraints for inline > functions, which still give me a headache whenever I try to look at the > GCC "documentation"). The problem here is that C99 doesn't (as far as I > know) give us everything we need, so simply moving to C99 syntax won't > be sufficient to support propietary C compilers. > > There will also be work needed to make sure that a kernel compiled with > gcc 3.x (whenever it's ready) will actually omit code which was intended > by the kernel developers. So we're definitely looking at a 2.5+
omit? did you mean emit?
> project, and one which may actually be fairly high risk; it's certainly > not a trivial task. > > - Ted
-- 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/
|  |