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    [W:0.020 / U:30.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site