From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:47:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:47:27 -0400 Received: from nef.ens.fr ([129.199.96.32]:31498 "EHLO nef.ens.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:47:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 20:47:15 +0200 From: Thomas Pornin To: jamagallon@able.es Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: fake loop Message-ID: <20010804204714.A46137@bolet.ens.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010804021304.A21339@werewolf.able.es> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <20010804021304.A21339@werewolf.able.es> you write: > I have heard many times that kernel is not thought to be compiled by > anything but gcc. Please, start useing gcc features -- There is little point in using gcc-specific features when there is a completely standard idiom that does the job just as well. Unless your goal is to obliterate all potential hopes to compile the kernel with another compiler at some time in the future. -- I heard that the gcc people are not especially happy with that feature anyway, and they will maintain it only for compatibility; which means any potential optimisation will rather go into the standard construct (the do...while(0)) rather than the gcc-ism. --Thomas Pornin