Roman Zippel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > your patch makes code larger on gcc3.
> >
> > By 120 bytes here. I dropped the patch.
>
> Is this really worth it? This _is_ a compiler problem, are we going to add
> now const everywhere to work around a (small) compiler problem, which is
> already fixed in newer versions?
>
Can't say I care a lot, but there doesn't seem much point in giving away
the consts now we have them, if it just produces worse code.
const arguments to functions are pretty useful for code readability and
maintainability too, if you use them consistently.
-
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]
