[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1182156706.2799.62.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:51:45 +0800
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
rmk@....linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [patch] use __asm__ and __volatile__ in i386/arm/s390
byteorder.h
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:24 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these
> > > headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99.
> >
> > hmm but the kernel doesn't use -std=c99...
>
> The byteorder headers are exported to user space through
> include/asm-generic/Kbuild.asm, and they are used by a number
> of other exported headers, so they should work with any
> gcc flags that a user might want to use.
Even those headers which are exported are _still_ kernel headers¹. The
'caveat emptor' principle still applies to them, and we don't have to be
_that_ anal about it. GNU extensions (and proper C types, for that
matter) should be acceptable, surely?
--
dwmw2
¹ well, except perhaps for the very few headers which get included
directly by glibc's headers, but aren't we still pretending that
doesn't happen?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists