On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 01:23:51PM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Artur Skawina <skawina@geocities.com> said:
> > Horst von Brand wrote:
> > > There was a great fight over that issue then, with people claiming that the
> > > kernel reimplementations where _much_ better than what gcc-2.7.2.3 gave.
> > > Maybe they are, but using 2.7.2.3 is just bowing to political correctness
>
> > ok, what are you proposing? going even further than the attached patch from
> > those days? can you make gcc2.95 use more builtins, while also never falling
> > back to the outofline versions?..
>
> I contend that (re)writing pieces of the C language standard inside the
> kernel is just wrong, and a waste of effort.
I wonder why we even have things like <linux/string.h>, it's something
that's defined in libc.
Why are we implementing things in the kernel while we could use someone
elses? I'm sure they're just as good.
I saw that some of the headers in /usr/include/linux did include
<asm/xxx.h>, and define some things that are defined in libc. Why don't
they just include <asm/xxx.h> and <xxx.h> in there .c files? Or even
include <xxx.h> in <linux/xxx.h> instead.
Q
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 21:00:09 EST