[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0807290927240.3334@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> the fix is simple enough.
>
> but the question is, wont it generate huge artificial stackframes with
> CONFIG_MAXSMP and NR_CPUS=4096?
Quite the reverse.
The "address-of statement expression" is the one that is more likely to
generate artificial stack-frames because of a temporary variable (of
course, I wouldn't count on it, since statement expressions are gcc
extensions, and as such the gcc people could make up any semantics they
want to them, including just defining that a statement expression with
an lvalue value is the same lvalue rather than any temporary).
In contrast, "address-of lvalue" is _guaranteed_ to not do anything stupid
like that, and gives just the address-of.
Oh, and I was wrong about the &*x losing the 'const'. It doesn't. So I
think Stephen's patch is fine after all - if somebody tries to modify the
end result through the pointer, it will give a big compiler warning.
Linus
--
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