Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S129414AbQKGVXk>; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:23:40 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S129473AbQKGVXb>; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:23:31 -0500
Received: from warden.digitalinsight.com ([208.29.163.2]:50621 "HELO
	warden.diginsite.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id <S129414AbQKGVXU>; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:23:20 -0500
From: David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>
To: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
Cc: Tim Riker <Tim@Rikers.org>, Jes Sorensen <jes@linuxcare.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:08:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.1001107160112.2416A-100000@chaos.analogic.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011071405380.8417-100000@dlang.diginsite.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Dick Johnson,
  earlier in the discussion there was a post of the 'incompatabilities'
that were noted and one of the replies to that listed several c99 tools
available to do the same job with the c99 syntax, so there are at least
some cases where things are done the gcc-only way instead of the c99 way.

nobody is suggesting that the kernel loose functionality to achieve
portability, the suggestion was mearly to be portable where possible and
clearly mark the places where gcc-isms are used and why.

David Lang




 On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:

> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:06:28 -0500 (EST)
> From: Richard B. Johnson <root@chaos.analogic.com>
> To: Tim Riker <Tim@Rikers.org>
> Cc: Jes Sorensen <jes@linuxcare.com>,
>      Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?)
> 
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Tim Riker wrote:
> 
> > Jes,
> > 
> > Hey how's Itanium been lately?
> > 
> > As was mentioned before, there are nonproprietary compilers around as
> > well that might be good choices. My point is that the ANSI C steering
> > committee is probably a more balanced forum to determine C syntax than
> > the gcc team. We should adopt c99 syntax where feasible, for example. I
> > am not asking anyone to use a proprietary compiler of they do not choose
> > to do so.
> > 
> 
> But we __do__ use c99 syntax wherever possible. However, not all
> of the kernel can be written strictly in 'C'. We need to use some
> assembly language for the hardware-specific stuff. Gcc provides
> those capabilities. We also need to control the alignment of
> some structure members because networking, SCSI, and a few other
> links to the outside world count on that. Gcc provides this
> capability also. It's a damn good tool.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Dick Johnson
> 
> Penguin : Linux version 2.4.0 on an i686 machine (799.54 BogoMips).
> 
> "Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of
> course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation
> obtained from the Micro$oft help desk.
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/