Re: [stable] Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix
From: Renate Meijer
Date: Wed Apr 06 2005 - 12:25:03 EST
On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:27:51PM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote:
Is it worth the effort? Not sure. But the "it's old, drop support
for it" argument just doesn't cut it and it doesn't get any better by
However, the argument gets better every time "a workaround" is needed.
If there are still serious issues
open (like a failure to catch bugs the old version did), they are
issues which need resolving in the
compiler. Patching the wrong project, is introducing two imperfections.
I think its worth the time and trouble to take this up with the gcc
crowd. So if you could provide a list of things 3.3 misses, i'm sure
the gcc-crowd would like it.
Exactly, that's why this patch is valid.
At the very least, it's at the wrong place, since it should be patched
in ./include/linux/compiler.h. And I do not exactly argue "it's old,
drop support for it", but rely on the "dont rely on compiler internals
or at least stick them on one place where everyone can find them
easily, instead of peppering the entire codebase with them" argument.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/