Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:39:39 -0500 | From | Tom Leete <> |
| |
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/
| |