On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 05:16 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Please reconsider. This isn't about being pretty, it's about not
> > having hidden side-effects,
>
> I wouldn't call it hidden, it's well defined in the architecture.
Sorry Andi, I'm not talking about the asm, which is fine. I'm talking
about the function-style macro which alters its arguments directly.
It's very bad form.
int a, b;
rdtsc(a, b);
> > and having typechecking.
>
> The existing code will already reject any non integer and I don't
> see a particular need to be more strict than that.
Um?
u64 c;
int a,b;
rdtsc(&a, &b);
rdtscl(c);
These macros are badly named and don't check for bad usage. Sure, less
than 1% of uses is wrong at the moment, but I'm volunteering to fix them
because I think it sets a bad example and sets us up for more bugs.
I feel fairly strongly about this, but I'll drop the x86_64 changes.
Rusty.
--
Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law
-
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]
