20 ms·
Because the code is OK, but the _rationals_ in the commit message (union aliasing is bad) are not. This is for history. If someone, later, say: "We should use
by Narann 8y ago
Because the code is OK, but the _rationals_ in the commit message (union aliasing is bad) are not.
This is for history. If someone, later, say: "We should use union aliasing to fix this", someone would argue "No, we shouldn't because we already states _there_ that union aliasing is bad".
You can't consider a such amount of code like the kernel one without its commit history.
Here Linus explain why union aliasing is not "bad" per see, but considered "bad" because the C standard say so and he clearly explain standards are not holy book and compiler implementation is as important (something he always states).
- hvidgaard 8y agoBut if he doesn't agree with the commit message, then asking for an altered PR with a different commit message is surely the way to go. Having to trawl the mailing list for maybe-happened-discussions seems like a stupid way to organize things. Maybe I just don't know how they structure the kernel development and documentation.