From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] new system call mknod64
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:50:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030421235009.GC17595@mail.jlokier.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b81tan$637$1@cesium.transmeta.com>
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > and in fact the patches I have been giving out use kdev_t
> > as internal format, where you can think of kdev_t as
> > u64, or, if you prefer, as struct { u32 major, minor; }.
>
> Any reason why we don't just *make it* a struct? (Well, besides that
> it'd somewhat suck on 64-bit architectures?)
It varies very much between architectures.
I just checked, and simple copies of this structure are absolutely
atrocious in GCC 3.2 (I tried Alpha, Mips64 and Sparc64). The code
was approx. 3 times longer to copy the 32:32 struct than to copy a 64
bit scalar.
On x86_64, the struct produces the same code as the scalar.
The same is true on s390x.
If you change this to test 16:16, on i386 (or x86_64 with -m32),
the struct still produces the same code as the scalar.
Looks like a part of GCC that might be easy to improve, given that it
works quite well on some architectures already.
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-21 23:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-04-21 21:43 Andries.Brouwer
2003-04-21 23:02 ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-04-21 23:50 ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2003-04-22 8:24 ` Shachar Shemesh
[not found] <20030421215009$2052@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <20030421231010$7ee3@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <20030422000016$17e3@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <20030422083014$0fe2@gated-at.bofh.it>
2003-04-22 20:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-04-22 1:02 Andries.Brouwer
2003-04-22 1:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-04-22 2:01 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-04-22 2:52 ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-04-22 6:00 ` jw schultz
2003-04-22 17:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-04-21 21:48 Andries.Brouwer
2003-04-21 22:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-04-20 22:12 Andries.Brouwer
2003-04-21 6:31 ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-04-20 21:26 Andries.Brouwer
2003-04-20 21:43 ` David S. Miller
2003-04-20 21:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-04-21 11:59 ` Roman Zippel
2003-04-21 18:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-04-21 18:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-04-21 18:21 ` viro
2003-04-21 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-04-21 18:27 ` viro
2003-04-21 18:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-04-21 18:54 ` viro
2003-04-21 19:16 ` Jörn Engel
2003-04-21 18:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-04-21 18:42 ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-04-21 18:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-04-21 18:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-04-21 18:58 ` viro
2003-04-21 19:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-04-21 19:35 ` viro
2003-04-21 20:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-04-21 19:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-04-21 19:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-04-21 18:51 ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-04-21 23:49 ` Roman Zippel
2003-04-20 20:34 Andries.Brouwer
2003-04-20 21:12 ` David S. Miller
2003-04-20 18:39 Andries.Brouwer
2003-04-20 18:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20030421235009.GC17595@mail.jlokier.co.uk \
--to=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®