[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28709.1187736676@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:51:16 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
cfriesen@...tel.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
rpjday@...dspring.com, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
satyam@...radead.org, zlynx@....org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, davem@...emloft.net,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:16:43 PDT, "Paul E. McKenney" said:
> I agree that instant gratification is hard to come by when synching
> up compiler and kernel versions. Nonetheless, it should be possible
> to create APIs that are are conditioned on the compiler version.
We've tried that, sort of. See the mess surrounding the whole
extern/static/inline/__whatever boondogle, which seems to have
changed semantics in every single gcc release since 2.95 or so.
And recently mention was made that gcc4.4 will have *new* semantics
in this area. Yee. Hah.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists