* Brian M. Carlson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > 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.
Well, I've just compiled Linux 2.5.69 with gcc 3.3 (Debian as in Sid) - all looks fine to me (although not tried to boot it). I'm just pointing out that they probably did a similar test; they compiled >>A<< linux kernel with some particular set of drivers (hopefully a fairly large chunk) and hopefully they checked it and it was OK; the fact that it fails in one (fairly obscure) driver is hardly cause for criticising them for not meeting their release criteria. > 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. Well I've got to say that that particular line has to come up in my category as the weirdest use of #define macroing that I've seen. I haven't got a clue if thats valid code or not. Dave ---------------- Have a happy GNU millennium! ---------------------- / Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux on Alpha,68K| Happy \ \ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | MIPS,x86,ARM,SPARC,PPC & HPPA | In Hex / \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/
