[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wj=WpWO_V86cZH99LgZGBbvdDb4wR26ce5van0hJqjzLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 09:30:01 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] Kbuild updates for v5.15-rc1
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 8:50 AM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
>
> Yes they are. It is the single standard way to get the functionality
> you want.
Sorry, but 'standard' is the part that the kernel simply doesn't do.
Just face it. The kernel isn't written with all those standards that
are designed for entirely different things in mind.
> I don't know why you think you can separate that. Take <stdarg.h> --
> there is no other (portable, standard) way to implement receiving
> variadic arguments.
You clearly haven't actually read the thread.
That was my whole argument. For the _historical_ situation.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists