[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47D0453D.5080501@adacore.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:25:49 -0500
From: Robert Dewar <dewar@...core.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
NightStrike <nightstrike@...il.com>,
Olivier Galibert <galibert@...ox.com>,
Chris Lattner <clattner@...le.com>,
Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>,
Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@...il.com>,
Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@...opsys.com>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@....cz>,
Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@...el32.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gcc@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: RELEASE BLOCKER: Linux doesn't follow x86/x86-64 ABI wrt direction
flag
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Robert Dewar wrote:
>> H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> So that is the bug in the Linux kernel. Since fixing kernel is much
>>> easier
>>> than providing a workaround in compilers, I think kernel should be fixed
>>> and no need for icc/gcc fix.
>> Fixing a bug in the Linux kernel is not "much easier". You are taking
>> a purely engineering viewpoint, but life is not like that. There are
>> lots of copies of Linux kernels around and in use. The issue is not
>> fixing the kernel per se, it is propagating that change to all
>> Linux kernels in use -- THAT'S another matter entirely, and is
>> far far more difficult than making sure that a kernel fix is
>> qualified and widely proopagated.
>>
>
> Not really, it's just a matter of time. Typical distro cycles are on
> the order of 3 years.
>
> -hpa
again, in the real world, there are MANY projects that are nothing
like this interactive when it comes to moving to new versions of
operating systems.
--
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