Messages in this thread | | | From | Renate Meijer <> | Subject | Re: [stable] Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix | Date | Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:29:46 +0200 |
| |
On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:27:51PM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote: >> >> Is it worth the effort? Not sure. But the "it's old, drop support >> for it" argument just doesn't cut it and it doesn't get any better by >> repetition.
However, the argument gets better every time "a workaround" is needed. If there are still serious issues open (like a failure to catch bugs the old version did), they are issues which need resolving in the compiler. Patching the wrong project, is introducing two imperfections.
I think its worth the time and trouble to take this up with the gcc crowd. So if you could provide a list of things 3.3 misses, i'm sure the gcc-crowd would like it.
> Exactly, that's why this patch is valid.
At the very least, it's at the wrong place, since it should be patched in ./include/linux/compiler.h. And I do not exactly argue "it's old, drop support for it", but rely on the "dont rely on compiler internals or at least stick them on one place where everyone can find them easily, instead of peppering the entire codebase with them" argument.
Regards,
Renate Meijer.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |