Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:31:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:31:40 -0400 Received: from [194.213.32.137] ([194.213.32.137]:1796 "EHLO bug.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:31:29 -0400 Message-ID: <20001027194513.A1060@bug.ucw.cz> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:45:13 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Cc: lkml Subject: Re: [patch] kernel/module.c (plus gratuitous rant) In-Reply-To: <39F5830E.7963A935@uow.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93i In-Reply-To: ; from Linus Torvalds on Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 01:55:56PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > if the person who sent you the -pre4 patch against module.c > > had Cc:'ed this mailing list then your kernel would do > > something useful when compiled with gcc-2.7.2.3. > > It seems that gcc-2.7.2.3 is terminally ill. I'd rather change > Documentation/Changes, and just document the fact. > > These kinds of subtle work-arounds for gcc bugs are not really acceptable, > nor is it worthwhile complaining when somebody does development with a gcc > that is _not_ broken, and doesn't notice that some random gcc bug breaks > the kernel for others. Would it be possible to keep 2.7.2.3? You still need 2.7.2.3 to reliably compile 2.0.X (and maybe even 2.2.all-but-latest?). Pavel -- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - 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/