From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28557 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2001 11:40:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28534 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2001 11:39:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.130.111.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2001 11:39:58 -0000 Received: from [128.130.111.28] (naos [128.130.111.28]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB6BdjW10490; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 12:39:45 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 04:31:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Andreas Schwab cc: Per Bothner , Subject: Re: misleading statement in bugs.html#known In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2 On 5 Dec 2001, Andreas Schwab wrote: >|> The point is that glibc allows you to *assign* to stdin, so it is >|> no longer constant. This is a questionable feature.. > No. The real reason is that using the address of a static object is a > nightmare in context of maintaining binary compatibility. Platforms that > use copy relocations will lose if the size of the FILE type changes. Would (one of) you (who knows this stuff) mind updating bugs.html? Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/