Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:13:31PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Nice spotting, but bad fix, IMO. swab...() stuff is a perfect example of
> > the dangerous use of macros. BTW, 2.4 has the same problem.
>
> inlines usually generate worse code than macros (the gcc manual lies on that),
> e.g. the register allocation is usually worse and CSE doesn't work that well.
> Normally it makes not that much difference, but these macros are rather
> performance critical.
The GCC manual doesn't lie on that ANY LONGER with respect to EGCS.
And we should adpat for the modern versions of the compiler instead
of dragging the *ugly* code with us until the earth stops spinning, iff
the only concern is performance.
>
> Better would be to use statement blocks like
> #define bla(x) ({ __u32 tmp__ = (x); ....; tmp__; })
>
> I would prefer to fix the callers anyways, because it is clearer this way.
>
> -Andi
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-- - phone: +49 214 8656 283 - job: STOCK-WORLD Media AG, LEV .de (MY OPPINNIONS ARE MY OWN!) - langs: de_DE.ISO8859-1, en_US, pl_PL.ISO8859-2, last ressort: ru_RU.KOI8-R - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 21:00:22 EST