Cort Dougan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Horst von Brand on Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:21:06PM -0400 said:
[...]
> } Oh, come on. The kernel (or glibc for that matter) is not about "inline
> } asm()" at all! That is a tiny fraction of each. The kernel is different in
> } that it has lots of hardware-dependent code, which leads to some rather
> } strange contortions in C in order to be able to _avoid_ asm. The kernel
> } also moves forward a lot faster than glibc, and grows a lot. A bug in glibc
> } means an application goes down or screws up, a bug in the kernel can mean
> } masive data loss in no time at all.
> I don't think I understand your point. Are you saying that gcc cannot be
> expected to keep up with the ways in which the kernel uses it? My argument
> is that providing a compiler that actually regresses (old version compiles
> kernel, redhat 7.0 included one does not) is not a good choice.
What I'm stating is just the fact that the kernel isn't keeping up with the
compiler.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
