Do you or anyone else on the list recall why this decision was made? Can
you recall around when it was made so I can dig out the history from the
I would be eager to convert everything over to the C99 syntax, test the
heck out of it and submit the patch. Obviously this is wasted effort if
there is a good reason to continue using the gcc syntax.
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> In article <3A01D463.9ADEF3AF@Rikers.org> you wrote:
> > As is being discussed here, C99 has some replacements to the gcc syntax
> > the kernel uses. I believe the C99 syntax will win in the near future,
> > and thus the gcc syntax will have to be removed at some point. In the
> > interim the kernel will either move towards supporting both, or a
> > quantum jump to support the new gcc3+ compiler only. I am hoping a
> > little thought can get put into this such that this change will be less
> > painful down the road.
> BTW: the C99 syntax for named structure initializers is supported from
> gcc 2.7.<something> on. But a policy decision has been take to use
> gcc syntax in kernel.
-- Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs! <g> All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten ... if I'd just been paying attention. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 21:00:12 EST