On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 07:22:19PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > In file included from init.c:30:
> > ../../prolog.h:344:8: invalid #ident
>
> It doesnt say #ident isnt supported it says your use of it is invalid. What
> precisely does that line read ?
JJ tried it and it worked on some version he w
> In file included from init.c:30:
> ../../prolog.h:344:8: invalid #ident
It doesnt say #ident isnt supported it says your use of it is invalid. What
precisely does that line read ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTEC
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:37:19AM -0800, Tim Wright wrote:
> Umm, I don't know what compiler you've got etc. Jeff, but I just tried gcc-2.96
> (-69) here, and '#ident' is supported and works perfectly. The only way to even
> get a warning is to use '-ansi -pedantic' which yields:
> junk.c:1:2: wa
Umm, I don't know what compiler you've got etc. Jeff, but I just tried gcc-2.96
(-69) here, and '#ident' is supported and works perfectly. The only way to even
get a warning is to use '-ansi -pedantic' which yields:
junk.c:1:2: warning: ISO C does not allow #ident
I don't think the problem is wit
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 12:32:13PM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 11:08:52AM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > Not supporting #ident for CVS managed code bases would see to
> > me, at first glance, to be a show stopper to shipping a release
> > of anything, since many folks
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 11:08:52AM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Not supporting #ident for CVS managed code bases would see to
> me, at first glance, to be a show stopper to shipping a release
> of anything, since many folks need CVS support.
Could you please explain what you mean by not suppo
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 09:07:31PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> So.. It's likely that calling your performance issues 'gcc bugs' is about
> the same as saying that SGI cc is buggy because it can't compile the kernel.
>
> At least you managed to avoid calling RedHat names. :)
I really have no
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 07:06:24PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> More to add on the gcc 2.96 problems. After compiling a Linux 2.4.1
> kernel on gcc 2.91, running SCI benchmarks, then compiling on RedHat
> 7.1 (Fischer) with gcc 2.96, the 2.96 build DROPPED 30% in throughput
> from the gcc 2.9
8 matches
Mail list logo
