lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> Make it and I will care and post it on kernel.org for you.
> I need that patch soon.
>
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Tom Leete wrote:
>
> > Alan Cox wrote:
> > > The string.h code was fine, someone came along and put in a ridiculous loop
> > > in the include dependancies and broke it. Nobody has had the time to untangle
> > > it cleanly since
> >
> > Yes, bitrot. I don't see a rearrangement of system headers happening in 2.4.
> > I'm pretty sure if I committed such a patch it would have no measurable
> > lifetime.

Hi Andre,

I meant that nobody should be reshuffling 2.4 headers now, didn't intend to
sound like I take that personally.

I'll take a look. I may be able to do something with include guards or other
#defines + multiple passes. We already have the multiple passes.

I think my arguments for the present patch are good. I'm making a mod of
Arjan's athlon.c to see if I'm right. If you have a suggestion for another
benchmark, I'd like to hear about it. Whatever the results, I'll post them
here.

Glad if whatever comes out is useful to you.

Cheers,
Tom

--
The Daemons lurk and are dumb. -- Emerson
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans