On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 23:52 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 03:21:06PM -0800, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
> > Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > Well, that probably would work, but it's also true that returning a 64-bit
> > > value on a 32-bit platform really _does_ depend on more than the size.
> >
> > Yeah, obviously this is restricted to the signed-integer case. My point
> > was just that you could have the compiler figure out which variant to pick
> > for loff_t automatically.
> >
> > > "let's not play tricks with function types at all".
> >
> > I think I agree. The real (but harder) fix for the wasted space issue
> > would be to get the toolchain to automatically combine functions that
> > end up compiling into identical assembly.
>
> Can't do.
>
you could if it's static and never has it's address taken (but that's
not the case here)
> You _can_ compile g into jump to f, but that's it. And that, AFAICS,
> is what gcc does.
I thought we actually disabled that in the kernel (it makes oopses
harder to read)....
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
