Artur Skawina <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Horst von Brand wrote:
> > There was a great fight over that issue then, with people claiming that the
> > kernel reimplementations where _much_ better than what gcc-188.8.131.52 gave.
> > Maybe they are, but using 184.108.40.206 is just bowing to political correctness
> ok, what are you proposing? going even further than the attached patch from
> those days? can you make gcc2.95 use more builtins, while also never falling
> back to the outofline versions?..
I contend that (re)writing pieces of the C language standard inside the
kernel is just wrong, and a waste of effort. If the compiler is going to go
further with the builtin business is a job for the people in charge of gcc
to decide, and AFAIK they are precisely discussing that matter now.
-- Horst von Brand email@example.com Casilla 9G, Viņa del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:15 EST