Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763040AbXJZVqK (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:46:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754545AbXJZVp5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:45:57 -0400 Received: from orion2.pixelized.ch ([195.190.190.13]:41555 "EHLO mail.pixelized.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753931AbXJZVp5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:45:57 -0400 Message-ID: <4722600A.4090903@cateee.net> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:45:46 +0200 From: Giacomo Catenazzi User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071009) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Bart Van Assche , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 834 Lines: 21 Linus Torvalds wrote: > The gcc lists seem to often get to the point where people quote the > standard, and that's that. In that environment, the paper standard (that > hass *nothing* to do with reality) trumps any other argument. "What we do > is _allowed_ by the standard" seems to be a good argument, even if it > breaks real code and there is no sane way to avoid doing it. So we have the great opportunity to change the standard, then gcc will change ;-) C is in pre-review phase, and it is taking proposal and correction for the C1x (so in few kernel release ;-) ) ciao cate - 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/