Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-40,: Re: We interrupt you regularly scheduled catfight for.. Linux

# Re: We interrupt you regularly scheduled catfight for.. Linux

Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu)
Sat, 30 Sep 2000 20:02:53 -0400 (EDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [RFC] Imminent death of /proc/locks predicted; film at 11"
- Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: We interrupt you regularly scheduled catfight for.. Linux 2.2.18pre13"

On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:

> Where does the idea that the kernel 'needs' a special compiler
> come from ? I have been under the impression that that is just

Mostly from the sad fact that it does.

> what we were trying to get away from . I am reminded of other
> os's that required their propritary compiler in order to create
> a os image . Please let us not travel that road . Tia , JimL

Patches are welcome. But keep in mind that we _are_ dependent on a
particular compiler. gcc, that is. I would be glad to get rid of it - the
codebase is extremely messy. However, removing gcc-isms is a huge
work. You are welcome to do it, indeed, but so far nobody had done that.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [RFC] Imminent death of /proc/locks predicted; film at 11"
- Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: We interrupt you regularly scheduled catfight for.. Linux 2.2.18pre13"