Re: Migrating to larger numbers
H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
8 Jun 1999 00:17:39 GMT
Followup to: <7jhku8$qmv@pell.pell.portland.or.us>
By author: o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s (david parsons)
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> >Guess what? We *ALREADY* depend on these -- dev_t in libc6 is a
> >64-bit number.
>
> Libc6 is an wad of regrettable design decisions that, fortunately,
> are not yet required to run a Linux kernel.
>
> Converting dev_t into a 64 bit number (and thus making an earlier
> regrettable design decision -- having the filesystem contain magic
> numbers for device access -- into a regrettable design decision that's
> buttressed by nonstandard GNU constructs) is comparable to putting
> the Mississippi in concrete culvert because it overflowed levees
> that were put up to make the floodplain safe for subdivisions.
>
Oh puh-leeze. C9x is in final balloting, and it is very likely it
will pass. gcc has supported a 64-bit type forever; there is no other
compiler that can compile libcX for X < 6 either (the headers are full
of gcc-specific constructs), so you can go around play with libc4 all
you want, but you're still going to need gcc.
This is silly.
-hpa
--
"The user's computer downloads the ActiveX code and simulates a 'Blue
Screen' crash, a generally benign event most users are familiar with
and that would not necessarily arouse suspicions."
-- Security exploit description on http://www.zks.net/p3/how.asp
-
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/