Re: [stable] Re: [08/08] uml: va_copy fix

[Renate Meijer]

On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Greg KH wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:27:51PM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote:
> > Is it worth the effort?  Not sure.  But the "it's old, drop support
> > for it" argument just doesn't cut it and it doesn't get any better by
> > repetition.

However, the argument gets better every time "a workaround" is needed. 
If there are still serious issues
open (like a failure to catch bugs the old version did), they are 
issues which need resolving in the
compiler. Patching the wrong project, is introducing two imperfections.

I think its worth the time and trouble to take this up with the gcc 
crowd. So if you could provide a list of things 3.3 misses, i'm sure 
the gcc-crowd would like it.

> Exactly, that's why this patch is valid.

At the very least, it's at the wrong place, since it should be patched 
in ./include/linux/compiler.h. And I do not exactly argue "it's old, 
drop support for it", but rely on the "dont rely on compiler internals 
or at least stick them on one place where everyone can find them 
easily, instead of peppering the entire codebase with them" argument.

Regards,

Renate Meijer.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/