On Sat, 21 June 2003 20:41:02 -0500, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:11:01PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>
> > Humm, I'd love to do that, i.e. to make gcc 3 required, lots of good
> > stuff like this one, anonymous structs, etc, etc, lots of stuff
> > could be done in an easier way, but are we ready to abandon gcc
> > 2.95.*? Can anyone confirm if gcc 2.96 accepts this?
>
> What *requires* 2.96 still? Is it a large number of people or obscure
> architecture?
Try these two litter things in Assembler code:
#define LONG_MACRO \
asm \
#ifdef something \
asm \
#else \
asm \
asm \
#endif \
asm
Compiles just fine with all 3.x I've tried.
jump 92f
...
81: ...
...
92 ...
Again, compiles just fine.
Both are clearly wrong and should not be in the source code. But
Assembler bugs are subtle, nasty and Code Checkers for Assembler are
rare. My vote is to keep 2.95+ support.
Jörn
-- "Error protection by error detection and correction." -- from a university class - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 22:00:37 EST