[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46794D6B.9050301@grupopie.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:53:15 +0100
From: Paulo Marques <pmarques@...popie.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
CC: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove usage of memmem from scripts/kallsyms.c
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>> So we could remove the "#define _GNU_SOURCE" at the top
>>>> of scripts/kallsyms.c too, presumably? If not (i.e. if there are
>>>> more GNUisms left in that file anyway), then I'm not sure if we
>>>> really gain by the change.
>>> yes, i believe this is true
>>
>> I only tried in on x86 with my toolchain and it works, but I don't
>> know if it is worth the risk of breaking someone's setup for virtually
>> no gain...
>
> With the memmem() removed, the code builds (and works)
> fine on several non-GNU systems. It should be perfectly
> safe to remove the _GNU_SOURCE.
You're right. I went back in history and it was me who introduced the
_GNU_SOURCE when I added the memmem too (shame on me). So, if it worked
fine before, there is no reason to not work now that memmem is removed.
So I can:
- send an incremental patch with just that line removed
- send a replacement patch
- just leave it for now and wait until I work on kallsyms again to
silently remove that line together with other changes
Andrew, what would you prefer?
--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
"All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy."
-
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