On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 22:36 +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Jim Gettys wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Strictly speaking, the ARM impementation of gcc is allowed to behave
> > > that way by the C standard. Not exercising this degree of freedom may
> > > be desireable to k
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 21:36 +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Jim Gettys wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Well, and deliberate ABI changes are frowned upon by toolchain people.
> > > To me (without having looked further than the bug report) this seems to
> > > be an implementat
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 19:56 +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Jim Gettys wrote:
> [snip]
> > This isn't saying we wouldn't add such a patch to X, though patches for
> > a particular compiler on a particular architecture do get frowned on
> > quite a lot: I just susp
> Here are his remarks, recast a bit from IRC-speak into something more
> conventional.
>
> GCC on ARM is doing something different from every other C compiler I've
> seen. It may not deviate from what the C specification allows, but it
> appears to deviate from common practice. The ARM f
reciated,
by anyone interested... Interested?
- Jim Gettys
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 09:46, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 13:11, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > > > I found this ide
rn, as it tells you something
pretty definate about the state of the X server.
But changing it to something else is certainly possible: I did not detect
consensus on the xpert list of what to change it to, however.
- Jim
--
Jim Gettys
Cambridge Research Laboratory
Compaq Compu
6 matches
Mail list logo
