On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 08:38:27AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Oleg Verych wrote: > > > > Probably it can be used to get rid of gccisms and "type fluff" due to > > bitwise arithmetics in ALIGN? > > Hell no. > > The typeof is there to make sure we have the right type, and it's simple. > > The current ALIGN() macro is efficient as hell (generating just a simple > mask+add). Turning it into some kind of horrible thing that uses ilog2() > would be a total mistake.
GCC's assembler version of this macro is optimized as needed. But i wanted to address Al's statement about using typeof(): ,-*- [ Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] |IOW, gcc allows type to leak out of scope it's been defined in (and |typeof adds even more fun to the picture). It not only goes against |a _lot_ in C, it's actually not thought through by gcc folks. Just |try to mix that with variable-length arrays and watch it blow up |in interesting ways... `-*- As for me, this is example of assembler's need, that very hard to implement in C. Also, i doubt, C's shift doing any "type fluff" on its only argument. > Also, your ALIGN() macro was broken. That's not how ALIGN() is supposed to > work. Yes, maybe so. ____ - 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/
