[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0809061406150.3117@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 14:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc: Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>,
Garrett Smith <garrett@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 0/4] TSC calibration improvements
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Where is a guarantee, that excpect is not decremented before we break
> out of the loop ?
Quite the reverse. We have a guarantee that it _is_ decremented.
Adn that guarantee is very much about the C language.
for (a ; b ; c) {
..
}
translates as
a;
while (b) {
..
continue:
c;
}
And this has absolutely _nothing_ to do with any gcc oddity or anything
else.
The fact is, the code that Ingo added was totally bogus. The real bug was
that he did a totally bogus "--expect" in the argument to that last call.
Because 'c' *will* have been done after the last iteration of the loop.
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