Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author: "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> We already know we are a bunch of pinheads wrt. the userland compiler
> issue, full stop. It need not be restated several hundred more times.
> Believe me, after such a large fiasco, we have listened :-)
>
> But, on the other hand, to say that "kgcc" comceptually is something
> only Red Hat has ever done is a factual error, that is all I am trying
> to state, nothing more.
>
I think at least supporting a "kgcc" compiler makes sense,
conceptually (although it probably should have been called "kcc", but
it's too late now.)
The kernel uses a lot of gcc extensions, and history shows that these
extensions aren't as stable as the compiler system as a whole.
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
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/
