Artur Skawina <email@example.com> said:
> actually somebody updated the code a few months ago. it used to be
> broken for newer gccs (wrong asm constraints). i have that patch
> marked 2-look-at, but i think it also went into 2.3 later.
> the other issue is that some of the functions are huge, it's unobvious
> that inlining them is a good idea, and apparetnly there are some
> doubts wrt their correctness.
New inline versions of string and mem functions (in particular for ia32)
went into the gcc main branch recently. I'll plead again for wasting the
in-kernel definitions, as (a) the compiler can handle builtins more
efficiently than inline asm (f.ex. interleave them with the surrounding
code if useful, optimize them in the context of their use as the compiler
knows their inards (which it doesn't for inline asm)), and (b) compiler
builtins will get much wider exposure, thus reducing the number and
severity of bugs in that code, and finally (c) you get it for free.
-- Horst von Brand firstname.lastname@example.org Casilla 9G, Viņa del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:11 EST