Stable kernels 2.6.27.27 and 2.6.30.2

Posted Jul 20, 2009 18:46 UTC (Mon) by xorbe (guest, #3165)
In reply to: Stable kernels 2.6.27.27 and 2.6.30.2 by vonbrand
Parent article: Stable kernels 2.6.27.27 and 2.6.30.2

Because 12 months from now, some new coder will come through and modify/enhance the functionality, and then accidentally break some key assumption, leading to a NULL pointer (or other condition). Or, perhaps it could be key in catching a memory corruption bug. I really hate when the compiler removes safety check (as I coded a "safety"/debug STL library once.) Sometimes you want the *#$^ compiler to do as you say, and not to second-guess the coder.

Stable kernels 2.6.27.27 and 2.6.30.2

Posted Jul 20, 2009 23:21 UTC (Mon) by qg6te2 (guest, #52587) [Link] (1 responses)

Say someone wants to compile the kernel with a compiler other than GCC -- what if the compiler doesn't have an equivalent to "-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks" ?

Stable kernels 2.6.27.27 and 2.6.30.2

Posted Jul 22, 2009 15:30 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Add one, or fix the makefiles? The kernel pretty much depends on your compiler, whatever compiler it is, acting like GCC. This includes supporting similar language extensions (especially weird ones like the statement expression extension), and supporting command-line arguments which at least do the same thing, even if their names aren't the same.