RE: 2.5.28 and partitions

[Anton Altaparmakov]

At 14:24 25/07/02, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
>On 25 Jul 02 at 14:03, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > At 12:44 25/07/02, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > >Al, still thinking that anybody who does mkfs.<whatever> on a multi-Tb
> > >device should seek professional help of the kind they don't give on l-k...
> >
> > Why? What is wrong with large devices/file systems? Why do we have to 
> break
> > up everything into multiple devices? Just because the kernel is "too lazy"
> > to implement support for large devices? Nobody cares if 64bit code is
> > 10-20% slower than 32bit code on a storage server. The storage devices are
>
>But I care whether gcc barfs on code or not, and whether generated code
>is correct or not.

Everyone cares about that! That has nothing to do with performance. It's 
simply a broken compiler which needs fixing.

>I do very trivial 64bit computations in TV-Out portion of matroxfb,
>but I spent two days shifting code up/down, adding temporary variables
>and splitting expressions to simple ones to make code compilable at all
>with gcc-2.95.4 compiling module for PIII kernel (Debian bug #151196).
>So I personally cannot recommend doing any 64bit math without setting
>gcc-3.0 as minimal version for ia32 architecture.

Thanks for the warning. I will keep an eye out for eventual "NTFS is broken 
with gcc-2.95 reports"... Although I would make that gcc-2.96 and not 3.0 
as minimum requirement. At least I haven't found anything wrong with the 
current gcc-2.96...

(Please let's not start another flamewar about whether gcc-2.96 exists or not.)

Best regards,

         Anton