Re: {PATCH} isofs stuff

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 
> > Note that gcc has always had problems with "long long" variables. Very few
> > people use them as they aren't standard, and the code generation can be
> > much trickier, so bugs are much more likely. This (along with performance
> > issues) was why I refused the original LFS patches - they put "long long"
> > code all over the place.
> 
> gcc 2.95.2 seems to have more problems with long long the egcs 1.1, I have
> at least one test case where it miscompiles a variable long long shift.

Interesting.

Can we get a show of hands? In particular, the only place "long long" is
really used is still the VFS layer, due to the LFS issues. It's not used
THAT much, but if gcc-2.95.2 has problems then it might be used enough to
trigger them.

To tie two threads together again: the thread about FS corruption is one
of my main worries right now. Do people who see this happen to use a gcc
other than egcs-2.91.66? I know Andries apparently has 2.95.2, and he's
one of the people who have reported corruption problems...

[ Btw, I noticed that one of my machines _does_ have gcc-2.95.2, so I can
  look at the isofs code generation myself.  I don't see anything obvious,
  and the code is hairy. The differences between 2.91.66 and 2.95.2 are
  big enough that a plain "diff" doesn't show anything clear. Andi, what
  does your test-case look like? ]

			Linus