[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080413181642.GA8641@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:16:42 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: always_inline wrapper for x86's test_bit
> I have googled, but the only problem I found was concerning dead code
It might come as a surprise, but google is still not omniscient.
> elimination, and in particular references to unavailable object from
> code that was expected to be discarded. The worst that can happen in
> this case is that gcc might produce a strange construction where a
> runtime check will choose between the two alternative implementations of
> test_bit. Another is that it will select the 'wrong' implementation.
> Both will result is some code-bloat, but at least the code should work
> properly.
Yes, but extreme code bloat can be fatal.
> I have not checked with 3.2. The oldest compiler I have available here
> is 3.3. That version compiles the functions as expected: I have found
> instances of either type in the objdump and I have not found strange
> constructions with both types there.
It would be good to check on 3.2 too to avoid potential nasty surprises.
> If you were thinking of another/bigger problem with gcc-3.2, could you
> please give me a pointer?
Not sure what you mean here.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists