Re: [PATCH] console UTF-8 fixes

[Egmont Koblinger]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:41:22PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> >> I've been thinking on it and I'm not sure which one the right way is. The
> >> reason for choosing this was probably that this way information that is
> >> not
> >> used by the code can be omitted by the compiler.
> >
> > Then let's leave it out of the source.
> 
> I however will put this into my rpm if it works/isstable.

We've arrived at another coding policy :)

There are two possible behaviors, each have pros and cons. HPA prefers one,
while Jan and me would prefer the other. The difference is one function that
contains a large table and an invocation of that function in a small if
branch.

In my latest version of the patch I've put the function itself inside
comments too. So it's not the real compiler, it's the preprocessor that
omits this code for the default behavior. HPA, I hope you don't mind if the
other reasonable behavior is there in the source, within comments. I think
let's make the job easier for those who have a different opinion. Or is it a
completely stupid idea?


-- 
Egmont
-
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/