From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds To: Joe Buck Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Trigraph warnings when compiling linux-2.4.0-prerelease1 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:38:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <200101021716.JAA08765@racerx.synopsys.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00073.html On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Joe Buck wrote: > > >> line 929: printk("imm: parity error (???)\n"); > > >> line 938: printk("imm: bad interrupt (???)\n"); > > > > > >This is a kernel bug. That is, a strict ISO C compiler > > >must print > > > > > >imm: bad interrupt (?] > > > > This is NOT a kernel bug. > > Well, at least, it's not a serious one. And if you want to claim that > the kernel is not written in C, but rather in a language dialect called, > say, gcc258, it's not a bug. Ehh.. The compiler is called "gcc", and is invoced as such. And you apparently entirely dismissed the fact that the Linux behaviour is based on _documented_ behaviour. And you still want to call it a "bug". > It's more important to alert users that their code may malfunction if > they compile it with a different compiler than to produce a warning-free > compile of the Linux kernel. It's a tradeoff. The kernel is only one > program. The kernel may be one program, but point me to a _single_ program that uses trigraphs. Show me _one_ serious program that wants to use them. The fact is, nobody uses trigraphs. NOBODY. They were a bad idea. But hey, as good as you are at ignoring documentation, I'm sure you'll have no trouble at all ignoring reality too. Linus