On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 07:35:23PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Brian M. Carlson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > Indeed they are. The Linux kernel is part of the release criteria (at > > least it was for 3.0) [0]. The site states: > > Which kernel version? On which architecture? With which drivers?
I really don't know. I'm not a mind reader. All I know is what is on the web site. I also know that gcc is the only compiler that consistently compiles the Linux kernel correctly--in general, that is. > Its fair to say Gcc shouldn't have any bugs that show up in a few > kernel builds, but you can't expect them to test everything; like gcc > the kernel is a big piece of code. No, I can't expect them to test everything, but I can expect them to give it at least a once through. This would have (or at least should have) been caught, because gcc 3.3 introduced a complete incompatibility with older versions: creating an error when pasting together two such tokens. I don't know what the standard says on this issue, but at most it requires a diagnostic, and a warning suffices. Changing the warning to an error breaks *a lot* of code that otherwise works, including the kernel. If a .c file doesn't turn into a .o file, and it did with 3.2 [0], that's a regression, and therefore a bug. You can argue for all eternity that it's not bug, but a feature, and I'll tell you that if Debian ever ships any version of gcc in unstable that doesn't compile the kernel, that's a bug. [0] with respect to the Linux kernel. -- Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7 "Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all." --Douglas Adams
pgpm8miC0tDE1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
