From: "Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@fastmail.fm>
To: "Andi Kleen" <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: "Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@mailshack.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: always_inline wrapper for x86's test_bit
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:24:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1208175845.22460.1247749229@webmail.messagingengine.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080413181642.GA8641@one.firstfloor.org>
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:16:42 +0200, "Andi Kleen" <andi@firstfloor.org>
said:
> > I have googled, but the only problem I found was concerning dead code
>
> It might come as a surprise, but google is still not omniscient.
Hi,
It's just not always easy to think of the right question to ask the
oracle ;).
> > elimination, and in particular references to unavailable object from
> > code that was expected to be discarded. The worst that can happen in
> > this case is that gcc might produce a strange construction where a
> > runtime check will choose between the two alternative implementations of
> > test_bit. Another is that it will select the 'wrong' implementation.
> > Both will result is some code-bloat, but at least the code should work
> > properly.
>
> Yes, but extreme code bloat can be fatal.
>
> > I have not checked with 3.2. The oldest compiler I have available here
> > is 3.3. That version compiles the functions as expected: I have found
> > instances of either type in the objdump and I have not found strange
> > constructions with both types there.
>
> It would be good to check on 3.2 too to avoid potential nasty surprises.
Checked with a stock 3.2.3 form gcc.gnu.org (compiled using debian's
gcc-2.95). It gets it right: places that should get the C version get
the C version and places that should get the inline-assembly version
get the inline-assembly version. No funny things at all.
B.T.W., debian and ubuntu don't provide gcc-3.2 packages. Is there a
good reason why gcc-3.2.3 (5 years old in a week) should still be
supported?
> > If you were thinking of another/bigger problem with gcc-3.2, could you
> > please give me a pointer?
>
> Not sure what you mean here.
I just thought you might have been thinking of a specific problem. A
bug-report or something like that would have been convenient to have.
Looking for a problem is easier than looking for no problems ;).
Greetings,
Alexander
> -Andi
--
Alexander van Heukelum
heukelum@fastmail.fm
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-14 12:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-13 11:23 Alexander van Heukelum
2008-04-13 16:58 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-13 18:03 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-04-13 18:16 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-14 12:24 ` Alexander van Heukelum [this message]
2008-04-14 12:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-14 12:34 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-14 7:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-14 13:49 ` Alexander van Heukelum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1208175845.22460.1247749229@webmail.messagingengine.com \
--to=heukelum@fastmail.fm \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=heukelum@mailshack.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome