Bruce Dubbs wrote: > hauradou wrote: > > >> well, the difference between a big patch and just one option to pass to >> the compiler... >> > I don't consider a 49 line patch big. It is really only adding 8 lines > and the rest is explanation. I believe the patch came from upstream. > > when I look inside the patch, that's not what I see:
Upstream Status: Not Submitted Origin: http://www.eglibc.org/archives/patches/msg00073.html Looks like a patch for eglibc, written in year 2007 > As I said before, I think your method is subtlety different from the > patch. > yes. But why do you assume this method implies less optimal code ? Which part of glibc's code would get sub-optimal? > -- Bruce > good night, all boloco -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
