From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 11 16:51:16 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5992C1065672; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:51:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ed@hoeg.nl) Received: from palm.hoeg.nl (mx0.hoeg.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:613:100::211]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9CB58FC14; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:51:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ed@hoeg.nl) Received: by palm.hoeg.nl (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0FF9D1CC77; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:51:15 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:51:14 +0200 From: Ed Schouten To: Steve Kargl Message-ID: <20090411165114.GV32098@hoeg.nl> References: <200904111401.n3BE1108088009@svn.freebsd.org> <20090411163528.GC46526@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="36+Jv5wzUORg1Ut4" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090411163528.GC46526@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r190919 - in head/sys: amd64/amd64 amd64/include i386/i386 i386/include X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:51:16 -0000 --36+Jv5wzUORg1Ut4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Steve, * Steve Kargl wrote: > I thought Christoph and bde were still hashing out the correctness > of this patch. >=20 > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-amd64/2009-April/012064.html Yes, so I've only committed a subset of changes of which there were no major (or in my opinion valid) objections: - The construct that we use now works with many versions of GCC. There is absolutely no reason why we should still try to support GCC <2.95. - There was also the discussion about __inline vs inline and __volatile vs __volatile. As Christoph and I noticed, there is also a lot of inconsistency between the usage of the keywords in the current sources we have. I already spent much time discussing this issue with Christoph to get to at least some compromise. --=20 Ed Schouten WWW: http://80386.nl/ --36+Jv5wzUORg1Ut4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkngyoIACgkQ52SDGA2eCwUyHQCdFp/douLinG9UzD2rW3tXt2mG HOcAn00aDbSPnekJTnM9i/uJmCwqW2ZO =ziVz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --36+Jv5wzUORg1Ut4--