Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:02:12 +0100 | From | Martin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) |
| |
Tim Riker wrote: > > ok, a very valid point. The "C++ kernel code" reference is very telling. > (ouch). ;-) > > Obviously the changes to support non-gcc compilers should have the goal > of minimal impact on gcc users lives. I recognize that the mainstream > will still use gcc. > > Q: Why should we help you make it possible to use a proprietary C > compiler? > > This is right on the money. I hope to show that is is all part of "World > Domination". ;-) I can easily see other paths to get there though, so > why this one? > > 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
No I think that there will be just a switch for gcc along the lines of gcc --forget-our-extensions-use-c99-for-this-file. Gnu code is common enough to justify this. And nothing will change in old code ;-). It's only recently that the G++ people got around to throw away some extensions (on the C++ part). - 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/
|  |