From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:31:11 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <174c125c7e2b6e1de7c2a782868a819f@kw.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: <20100424185913.9A9CC5B42@mail.bitblocks.com> References: <239c41a785c8c5638338c2f007f50733@vitanuova.com> <20100423200815.03B385B4A@mail.bitblocks.com> <5a6d0c09e489554087dcb101dd96e727@coraid.com> <20100424185913.9A9CC5B42@mail.bitblocks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] BUG!!! in Plan9 compiler! Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0d2bd270-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Is this behaviour really useful for anything? Is there > anything in plan9 code that relies on this behaviour in a > critical way? I suspect this rule can be changed without > impacting plan 9 code much (which as a rule is of much higher > quality than most open source code) and we already know > programs ported to p9p work fine. the network stack has a few bits that don't work without changes, as i painfully learned with 9vx. if a patch to the c compiler showed up that did this and were distributed with sources, i would only consider using it only if there were an automatic way of locating code that might change behavior with a lowish false positive rate and a verifiably zero false negative rate. even then it would be very painful as i would need to verify that the system and all our shipping code works properly with new rules. i see little upside. in short, That Boat Has Sailed. - erik