>
> The attached patch fixes both. It is against 2.4.4, but from the looks
> of it it should patch against -ac as well.
>
> -hpa
--
Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs!
All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten
... if I'd just been paying atten
ver from 2.2 to 2.4, and in
> some cases people may just not want to do it untill 2.4 has gone through a
> little more refining, and that could take a while.
>
> To sum it up, I just don't think this is the right decision to make, at
> least not yet.
> My opinion probably w
.
What do you think? We could add a lo_length to struct loop_device and
return that if it was non-zero and less than the physical length
calculated normally by figure_loop_size().
While I'm at it why are loop_sizes[] and loop_blksizes[] not part of
struct loop_device now?
--
Tim Riker -
IDE device), configures it
> normally, then finds hdb (flash), and clobbers all the correct info it already
> detected for hda. This seems just plain wrong.
>
> -alex
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message
ilesystem to denote versioning information to allow for
> the difference in the inode.
>
> Thanks,
> Shane.
> -
> 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 htt
where feasible, for example. I
am not asking anyone to use a proprietary compiler of they do not choose
to do so.
Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Tim" == Tim Riker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Tim> Alan Cox wrote:
> >> > 1. There
disputed that it
> was required at all.
>
> --
> dwmw2
>
> -
> 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/
--
Tim Riker - http://
ntity owns all of the rights.
In short the impact of adding code to gcc that is not copyright FSF is
minimal. Only the FSF copyrighted code would be defensible by the FSF.
Any other code GPL violations would be the responsibility of the
copyright owners to defend.
As before IANAL. ;-)
Russ Allb
FSD ever wanted to go to court to defend the freedom of gcc.
Statements above are my own, and I am not a lawyer.
--
Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs!
All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten
... if I'd just been paying attention.
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
to this question is it not?
>
> If gcc is architecturally unable to do ia64 well, pro64 is free software and
> both understand the same syntax Im at a bit of a loss why that is productive
Alan Cox wrote in another message:
> Or a third party decides its a silly situation and does it
yes, exactly what my comments stated.
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 01:52:24PM -0700, Tim Riker wrote:
> > Alan,
> >
> > Perhaps I did not explain myself, or perhaps I misunderstand your
> > comments. I was responding to a comment that we c
;unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs!
All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten
... if I'd just been paying attention.
-
To unsu
on IA64.
> > It is also not clear if gcc will ever produce good code on IA64.
>
> Well if its compiling the kernel just fine without alterations to the
> code, then fine. If not, if the SGI compiler is GPL'd pillage its sources
> and get that code working in gcc. Otherwise, tr
eaking the existing world as
we know it.
Tim
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" wrote:
>
>Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:53:55 -0700
>From: Tim Riker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>As is being discussed here, C99 has some replacements to the gcc syntax
>the kernel uses. I b
cates gcc all ready supports this? I have not yet dug into
which pragmas though... ;-)
Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:27:35PM -0700, Tim Riker wrote:
> > #pragma is a particularly difficult problem to deal with because it is
> > non macro friendly. =(
>
>
attribute__((packed)).
> It just always has a different syntax, usually even non macro friendly (#pragma)
>
> -Andi
>
> [1] ok and the TenDRA one
--
Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs!
All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten
... if I'd just been pa
at this change will be less
> > painful down the road.
>
> BTW: the C99 syntax for named structure initializers is supported from
> gcc 2.7. on. But a policy decision has been take to use
> gcc syntax in kernel.
--
Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs!
All I need to kno
s.
>
> Alan
PS, while I'm writing to you. I reread my earlier reply to you and Ben
was right about chewing me out for it. My bad.
--
Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs!
All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten
... if I'd just been paying attention.
-
T
that sound for a way forward?
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" wrote:
>
>Date:Thu, 02 Nov 2000 12:31:51 -0700
>From: Tim Riker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Me or Alan? I did not mean this as a dig. I feel strongly that one
>should have the choice here. I do
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 12:17:33PM -0700, Tim Riker wrote:
> > [..] by adding gcc
> > syntax into it [..]
>
> I think that's the right path. How much would be hard for you to add gcc syntax
> into your compiler too instead of feeding
Ben Ford wrote:
>
> Tim Riker wrote:
>
> > Alan Cox wrote:
> > >
> > > > 1. There are architectures where some other compiler may do better
> > > > optimizations than gcc. I will cite some examples here, no need to argue
> > >
> > &
as that SGI had built the kernel with thier compiler, by adding gcc
syntax into it, but had not reached the point where the kernel would
run. Perhaps they have gotten past this. Since I'm no longer involved in
the Trillian (read ia64 Linux Project) mailing lists or weekly phone
calls I have
eeds to solve it do it.
We have proposals here all under NDA. So I won't mention one of them.
Perhaps there are some of these folk on the list that would like to
comment?
>
> Alan
--
Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs!
All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten
..
; 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
--
Tim Ri
gt; > We should never have used anything but "i386" as the utsname... sigh.
>
> Its questionable if we should include the 'i'
heh, agreed. let's rename 'em all x86 and be done with it. ;-)
--
Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs!
All I need to know I cou
25 matches
Mail list logo
