On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > >
> > > case xxx:
> > > /* fallthrough */ ;
> > > }
> > >
> > > or something (or maybe just a "break" statement), just so that we don't
> > > turn the poor C language into line noise (
On 10 Jan 2001, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Marco Colombo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But what happens if I delete the stm1 line? We have:
> >
> > case xxx:
> > /* fallthrough */
> > case yyy:
> > stm2;
> >
> > which is wrong.
>
> AFAIK, that's perfectly correc
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Marco Colombo wrote:
> >
> > case xxx:
> > /* fallthrough */ ;
> > }
> >
> > or something (or maybe just a "break" statement), just so that we don't
> > turn the poor C language into line noise (can anybody say "perl" ;)
>
> Of course, you don't mean t
Marco Colombo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But what happens if I delete the stm1 line? We have:
>
> case xxx:
> /* fallthrough */
> case yyy:
> stm2;
>
> which is wrong.
AFAIK, that's perfectly correct. It's only the case where you have a
label at the
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:31:35PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > don't have to worry about undocumented extensions etc.
> >
> > Infact I don't blame gcc maintainers for that, but the standa
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:10:37PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I have to say, I think it was Pascal had this "no semicolon needed before
> an 'end'" rule, and I always really hated that. The C statement rules make
Me too ;)
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
On 9 Jan 2001, at 23:10, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:31:35PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > don't have to worry about undocumented extensions etc.
> >
> > Infact I don't blame gcc maintainers for that, but the s
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:31:35PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > don't have to worry about undocumented extensions etc.
>
> Infact I don't blame gcc maintainers for that, but the standard. Ok, minor
> issue.
Yeah, and nothing we can do about i
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:31:35PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> don't have to worry about undocumented extensions etc.
Infact I don't blame gcc maintainers for that, but the standard. Ok, minor
issue.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body
On 9 Jan 2001, at 10:51, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
> > [about labels w/o statements after them]
> >
> > >> Is this really a kernel bug? This is common idiom in C, so
gcc
> > >> shouldn't warn about it. If it does, it is a bug in gcc IMHO.
> >
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
> > Let the gcc people fix the bugs they find without complaining about them.
> > After all, gcc would have been perfectly correct in signalling this as a
> > syntax error, and aborted compilation. The fact that gcc only warns about
> > it is a sig
Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>> [about labels w/o statements after them]
>>
Is this really a kernel bug? This is common idiom in C, so gcc
shouldn't warn about it. If it does, it is a bug in gcc IMHO.
>>>
>>> No, it is not a common idiom in C. I
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> [about labels w/o statements after them]
>
> >> Is this really a kernel bug? This is common idiom in C, so gcc
> >> shouldn't warn about it. If it does, it is a bug in gcc IMHO.
> >
> > No, it is not a common idiom in C. It has _never_ been valid
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> [about labels w/o statements after them]
>
> >> Is this really a kernel bug? This is common idiom in C, so gcc
> >> shouldn't warn about it. If it does, it is a bug in gcc IMHO.
> >
> > No, it is not a common idiom in C. It has _never_ been valid C
[about labels w/o statements after them]
>> Is this really a kernel bug? This is common idiom in C, so gcc
>> shouldn't warn about it. If it does, it is a bug in gcc IMHO.
>
> No, it is not a common idiom in C. It has _never_ been valid C.
>
> GCC originally allowed it due to a mistake in the gr
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:50:01PM +0100, Erik Mouw wrote:
> Is this really a kernel bug? This is common idiom in C, so gcc
> shouldn't warn about it. If it does, it is a bug in gcc IMHO.
No, it is not a common idiom in C. It has _never_ been valid C.
GCC originally allowed it due to a mistake
On 8 Jan 2001, at 20:50, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 09:40:51PM -0500, Rich Baum wrote:
> > Here's a patch that fixes more of the compile warnings with gcc
> > 2.97.
>
> > -case FORE200E_STATE_BLANK:
> > +case FORE200E_STATE_BLANK:;
>
> Is this really a kernel bug? This
> > -case FORE200E_STATE_BLANK:
> > +case FORE200E_STATE_BLANK:;
>
> Is this really a kernel bug? This is common idiom in C, so gcc
> shouldn't warn about it. If it does, it is a bug in gcc IMHO.
It's not valid in current ISO C. So gcc warns about it
-
To unsubscribe from this list: se
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 09:40:51PM -0500, Rich Baum wrote:
> Here's a patch that fixes more of the compile warnings with gcc
> 2.97.
> -case FORE200E_STATE_BLANK:
> +case FORE200E_STATE_BLANK:;
Is this really a kernel bug? This is common idiom in C, so gcc
shouldn't warn about it. If it
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 07:41:57 -0500,
Paul Gortmaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rich Baum wrote:
>>
>> Here's a patch that fixes more of the compile warnings with gcc
>> 2.97.
>> -#endif __SNMP__
>> +#endif /* __SNMP__ */
>
>Might as well automate it for all of these endif ones through the entire
Rich Baum wrote:
>
> Here's a patch that fixes more of the compile warnings with gcc
> 2.97.
[...]
> -#endif __SNMP__
> +#endif /* __SNMP__ */
Might as well automate it for all of these endif ones through the entire
kernel (assuming you already haven't of course).
Paul.
---
21 matches
Mail list logo
