On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 14:58, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:54:08PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> > what do the following patches actually *fix*?
> >
> > 00_backout-gcc-3_0-patch-1
> > 00_gcc-30-volatile-xtime-1
> >
> > I'm trying to get 2.4.20 patched up by using the -aa split patches for
> > 2.4.20 and I'm incorporating only the things I want, but I use gcc 3.2
> > for compiling, and these confused me a bit.
>
> Oooh, I had lengthy discussion with andrea on those two. These patches
> are a) grossly misnamed and b) should be one. They change xtime to a volatile
> because andrea thinks that's safer.
>
> The background on the silly naming is that earlier 2.4 kernels had xtime
> not volatile but the prototype (or vice versa) and gcc3 didn't like that.
Ahh...kewl. thanks much. I was thinking that, but I was very confused by
the naming versus the code. (not that I was *that* sure of the code
anyway, but you know.) :)
> So the best idea would be to merge them into 00_xtime_volatile-1 if
> you want to keep them.
Ok...that sounds like a plan. Thanks so much.
-- GrandMasterLee <masterlee@digitalroadkill.net> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:17 EST