From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261474AbTDQO2I (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:28:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261482AbTDQO2I (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:28:08 -0400 Received: from havoc.daloft.com ([64.213.145.173]:36238 "EHLO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261474AbTDQO2H (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:28:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:40:03 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik To: Alan Cox Cc: Linus Torvalds , LKML Subject: Re: [BK+PATCH] remove __constant_memcpy Message-ID: <20030417144003.GB18749@gtf.org> References: <3E9DFC11.50800@pobox.com> <1050585430.31390.32.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20030417143202.GA18749@gtf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030417143202.GA18749@gtf.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 10:32:02AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:17:16PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > isn't it best if so to use __builtin_memcpy without our existing > > macros not just trust the compiler ? > hum, I didn't parse this at all: > Use of __builtin_memcpy implies trusting the compiler :) > > Maybe you meant s/without/with/ ? And further, if you did indeed mean s/without/with/ ... that's -exactly- what my submitted patch did. Jeff