On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 02:43:30PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 1 May 2007, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> > Does this still apply? Do current versions of GCC still have this problem?
> > If not, can the option and warning go away?
>
> Even if current versions of gcc don't triple the build time (and for the
> kernel, I suspect it doesn't, because we've tried to clean up our header
> files), the generated _code_ will invariably suck.
FWIW, I do sparse runs on the fedora development kernels as part of
our daily builds now, and of the latest ones at
http://people.redhat.com/davej/kernels/Fedora/fc7/warnings.txt
(concatenated warning logs from i586/i686/x86_64/ppc/ppc64/s390 builds)
that 'expensive pointer subtraction' turns up 3705 times.
Interestingly, 1873 of those instances are from include/linux/mm.h
on the x86-64 build.
It's complaining about this line...
static __always_inline void *lowmem_page_address(struct page *page)
{
return __va(page_to_pfn(page) << PAGE_SHIFT);
}
...
unsigned long page_to_pfn(struct page *page)
{
return __page_to_pfn(page);
}
...
#define __page_to_pfn(page) ((unsigned long)((page) - mem_map) + \
ARCH_PFN_OFFSET)
looks like the other two variants of __page_to_pfn also use similar arithmatic.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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]
