Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:51:14 +0200 From: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> 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 Message-ID: <20090411165114.GV32098@hoeg.nl> In-Reply-To: <20090411163528.GC46526@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <200904111401.n3BE1108088009@svn.freebsd.org> <20090411163528.GC46526@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--36+Jv5wzUORg1Ut4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Steve, * Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> 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 <ed@80386.nl> 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--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090411165114.GV32098>