[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808210845280.3487@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] mdb: Merkey's Linux Kernel Debugger 2.6.27-rc4
released
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> Let's face it, the C standard does not support concurrency, so we are
> all in a state of sin in any case, forced to rely on combinations of
> gcc-specific non-standard language extensions and assembly language.
>
> Could be worse!!!
It _will_ be worse.
The C standard will eventually support concurrency (they are working on
it), and it will almost inevitably be a horrible pile of stinking sh*t,
and we'll continue to use the gcc inline asms instead, but then the gcc
people will ignore our complaints when they break the compiler, and say
that we should use the stinking-pile-of-sh*t ones that are built in.
No, I haven't seen the drafts, and maybe I'm overly pessimistic, but I'm
pretty sure that this is an area where (a) the kernel needs more support
than most normal pthread-like models and (b) any design-by-committee thing
simply won't be very good, because they'll have to try to make everybody
happy.
Oh, well.
Linus
--
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