[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901161433410.27177@quilx.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:37:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>
cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
andi@...stfloor.org, ak@...ux.intel.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
travis@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/8] compiler-gcc.h: add more comments to RELOC_HIDE
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I didn't explore the space of possible solutions, merely gave Rusty a solution
> that I knew would work, and would never fail because the compiler would never
> look through the asm.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if the compiler thought "(long)&foo - large_constant"
> could be put back together into a small-data relocation, simply because at the
> level at which that optimization is performed, we've thrown away type data
> like long and void*; we only have modes.
We are talking about
(long)&foo + long_variable
Are you saying that the compiler will be ignoring the high bits in
variable because of the size of foo?
> Why are you wanting to change this at all? It works as it is.
It looks like its useless and more an indication of either a broken
compiler or wrong assumptions about the compiler. Removing RELOC_HIDE
should allow the compiler to freely optimize the per cpu address
calculations.
--
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