"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andi Kleen wrote: >>> A lot of that code (although, of course, not all) could be written in C, >>> though. I'm thinking of taking a stab at rewriting it that way. >> >> That would require a new compiler, right? I don't think that would >> make users very happy. >> >> Besides the code is not exactly that maintenance intensive and only >> changes rarely so I don't need a pressing need to rewrite it > > No, it would not need a new compiler. All it requires is gcc plus a > reasonably recent binutils which you need anyway.
There opportunities to enhance this code without writing it in C. Such as building the code out comprehensible single of subroutines, with a well defined calling sequence. The big benefit when you can go to C is that you can include headers from elsewhere in the kernel and since setup.S is increasingly becoming optional it has a fixed interface to the rest of the kernel, so there is much less opportunity for enhancement there. Eric - 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/
