Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:41:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:40:57 -0400 Received: from purple.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.4]:13738 "EHLO purple.csi.cam.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:38:30 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020725144011.00ab3ec0@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:45:13 +0100 To: "Petr Vandrovec" From: Anton Altaparmakov Subject: RE: 2.5.28 and partitions Cc: Linus Torvalds , Matt_Domsch@Dell.com, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1D94527606@vcnet.vc.cvut.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2115 Lines: 49 At 14:24 25/07/02, Petr Vandrovec wrote: >On 25 Jul 02 at 14:03, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > At 12:44 25/07/02, Alexander Viro wrote: > > >Al, still thinking that anybody who does mkfs. on a multi-Tb > > >device should seek professional help of the kind they don't give on l-k... > > > > Why? What is wrong with large devices/file systems? Why do we have to > break > > up everything into multiple devices? Just because the kernel is "too lazy" > > to implement support for large devices? Nobody cares if 64bit code is > > 10-20% slower than 32bit code on a storage server. The storage devices are > >But I care whether gcc barfs on code or not, and whether generated code >is correct or not. Everyone cares about that! That has nothing to do with performance. It's simply a broken compiler which needs fixing. >I do very trivial 64bit computations in TV-Out portion of matroxfb, >but I spent two days shifting code up/down, adding temporary variables >and splitting expressions to simple ones to make code compilable at all >with gcc-2.95.4 compiling module for PIII kernel (Debian bug #151196). >So I personally cannot recommend doing any 64bit math without setting >gcc-3.0 as minimal version for ia32 architecture. Thanks for the warning. I will keep an eye out for eventual "NTFS is broken with gcc-2.95 reports"... Although I would make that gcc-2.96 and not 3.0 as minimum requirement. At least I haven't found anything wrong with the current gcc-2.96... (Please let's not start another flamewar about whether gcc-2.96 exists or not.) Best regards, Anton -- "I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown -- Anton Altaparmakov (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/ - 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/