> The idea is not to hide the unlikely, but to leave the opportunity to
> make this primitive evolve in something that won't depend on a load
> immediate and only require patching of a jump, given the appropriate gcc
> support (yet to come).
If that ever happens the code can be still changed. But i don't think
it's a good idea to uglify the code for something that if it
ever exists will be a long time away.
Besides if gcc supports it I assume the gcc support could
also be written in a way that makes it possible to hide it inside
a standard if ()
-Andi
-
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]
