From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Tim Riker <Tim@Rikers.org>
Cc: 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?)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 21:21:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20001102212124.A15054@gruyere.muc.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20001101234058.B1598@werewolf.able.es> <200011012345.PAA20284@pizda.ninka.net> <20001101172100.A5081@fsmlabs.com> <200011020011.QAA20585@pizda.ninka.net> <8tqcng$d8p$1@cesium.transmeta.com> <3A01B8BB.A17FE178@Rikers.org>
In-Reply-To: <3A01B8BB.A17FE178@Rikers.org>; from Tim@Rikers.org on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:55:55AM -0700
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:55:55AM -0700, Tim Riker wrote:
> 1. C++ style comments
>
> Occurs in over 4000 lines of source and header files. :-( Should be
> converted to ansi c comments? We will probably want to just skirt this
> issue for now as the next rev of ANSI C is likely to include ANSI C++
> style comments.
First C99 includes C++ comments and it is more or less the "ANSI-C" now.
I also have my doubts that it is a real portability problem in practice,
it is such a common extension that most compilers I know have some switch
to enable it and even if they didn't it would be trivial to write a small
wrapper to remove them.
>
> 2. Inline assembly statements
>
> mostly in arch/ tree. Frequently used in macros as well. Much of this
> will incur performance penalties if moved to external assembly files.
> Some would require moving supported C code over as well. Hence many of
> these will probably translate into conditional compilation based on the
> compiler to avoid and performance hit for the mainstream case.
That will not work out. Linux without some form of inline assembly
sounds very unlikely. In theory you could maybe write wrappers for some
common inline assembly idioms, but in the end you'll likely need to duplicate
some files in asm/ and arch/
> 7. Macros with variable numbers of arguments
>
> no recommendation yet.
ISO C99 has a replacement, unfortunately not gcc compatible. gcc3+ supports
it, but you would drop compatibility to older gcc releases [which would
not make you very popular..]
You also forgot named structure initializers, but C99 supports them
again with a different syntax than gcc [I guess it would have been too easy
to just use the gcc syntax]
-Andi (who would much like to use C99 mixed statements/declarations in the kernel,
but not even gcc3 supports it yet)
-
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/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-11-02 20:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 109+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-01 22:57 Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Kurt Garloff
2000-11-01 22:40 ` J . A . Magallon
2000-11-01 22:47 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-01 22:45 ` Gérard Roudier
2000-11-01 23:07 ` Ben Pfaff
2000-11-01 23:11 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-01 23:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-01 23:12 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-01 23:21 ` Tom Rini
2000-11-01 23:30 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-01 23:36 ` Tom Rini
2000-11-02 0:22 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 4:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2000-11-02 4:59 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-01 23:29 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-01 23:45 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-02 0:00 ` Cort Dougan
2000-11-02 0:54 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 0:11 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-02 0:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2000-11-02 0:59 ` Bill Nottingham
2000-11-02 18:55 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Tim Riker
2000-11-02 19:07 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 19:07 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 19:24 ` Ben Ford
2000-11-02 19:31 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 20:37 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2000-11-02 20:53 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 21:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2000-11-02 21:21 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-02 22:46 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Theodore Y. Ts'o
2000-11-02 23:16 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-03 12:02 ` Martin Dalecki
2000-11-04 11:30 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-02 20:53 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 21:04 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 21:17 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 21:23 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 21:27 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-02 21:41 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 21:43 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-03 7:21 ` Gábor Lénárt
2000-11-04 11:39 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-04 11:37 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Kai Henningsen
2000-11-07 16:33 ` Jes Sorensen
2000-11-07 20:52 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-07 21:06 ` Richard B. Johnson
2000-11-07 22:08 ` David Lang
2000-11-07 21:36 ` Richard B. Johnson
2000-11-08 0:04 ` yodaiken
2000-11-02 19:18 ` Andi Kleen
2000-11-02 19:17 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-02 19:52 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-02 20:00 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-02 20:29 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-02 22:23 ` D. Hugh Redelmeier
2000-11-02 22:31 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-03 22:02 ` D. Hugh Redelmeier
2000-11-04 5:34 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Aaron Sethman
2000-11-04 9:18 ` non-gcc linux? Tim Riker
2000-11-04 10:58 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-05 20:52 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-05 21:06 ` Jakub Jelinek
2000-11-05 21:18 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-05 22:42 ` Marc Lehmann
2000-11-05 23:05 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-06 0:05 ` Marc Lehmann
2000-11-06 8:53 ` Thomas Pornin
2000-11-05 23:26 ` Ion Badulescu
2000-11-06 6:34 ` Eric W. Biederman
2000-11-05 22:46 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-05 22:45 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-05 22:52 ` Tim Riker
2000-11-04 12:20 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-06 17:14 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Ralf Baechle
2000-11-02 20:21 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2000-11-02 20:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2000-11-05 13:03 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-03 11:33 ` Thomas Pornin
2000-11-04 11:19 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-04 12:24 ` Kai Henningsen
2000-11-05 3:28 ` Michael Meissner
2000-11-02 0:21 ` Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10 ? Nathan Paul Simons
2000-11-02 2:42 ` Marc Lehmann
2000-11-02 21:24 ` Gérard Roudier
2000-11-02 22:37 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-01 23:54 ` Cort Dougan
2000-11-02 6:28 ` Jakub Jelinek
2000-11-02 0:06 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-02 0:11 ` Nathan Paul Simons
2000-11-02 0:22 ` Tom Rini
2000-11-02 0:26 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 0:56 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-01 23:37 ` Nathan Paul Simons
2000-11-02 0:17 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2000-11-02 0:30 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 1:01 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2000-11-01 22:53 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-02 1:12 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 2:47 ` J . A . Magallon
2000-11-02 3:26 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-11-02 11:40 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-01 23:04 ` George
2000-11-02 1:08 ` Jan Dvorak
2000-11-01 23:12 ` Alan Cox
[not found] <fa.g3i0smv.15loso7@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.cjn9ksv.1a0m82t@ifi.uio.no>
2000-11-04 6:19 ` non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Russ Allbery
2000-11-04 8:40 ` Michael Meissner
2000-11-04 8:44 ` Russ Allbery
2000-11-06 12:06 ` Horst von Brand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20001102212124.A15054@gruyere.muc.suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=Tim@Rikers.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®