On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 7:29 AM Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 04:51:27PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > > fwiw I confirmed clang does *not* have the problem, I don't know about gcc > > 14. > > > > Maybe I'll get around to testing it, but first I'm gonna need to carve > > out the custom asm into a standalone testcase. > > > > Regardless, 13 suffering the problem is imo a good enough reason to > > whack the change. > > Reverting a change because a specific compiler generates sligtly worse > code without even showing it has any real life impact feels like I'm > missing something important. >
The change is cosmetic and has an unintended impact on code gen, which imo already puts a question mark on it. Neither the change itself nor the resulting impact are of note and in that case I would err on just not including it for the time being, but that's just my $0.03. -- Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
