* Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-09-27 11:44 > Thomas Graf wrote: > > * Nordlund Kim (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-09-27 11:50 > > > >>So I would suggest to apply this patch to be compatible with the > >>GCC version in RHEL5, and simply to make code clearer (to the > >>intended idea). > > > > > > Yes. > > I don't care much about this small change, but I think bugs > should be fixed where they originate.
Absolutely, I'm not even sure who's fault it really is. When writing that code I must have expected gcc to correctly underflow which might have been a wrong assumption. I think it doesn't matter whether this is a gcc bug or not, having this code part wort with gcc 4.1 is a good thing anyway. > If RH's gcc miscompiles > this with -Os I wouldn't trust it anyway, and the easy way to > fix it seems to be to deactivate CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE, > which even includes a big warning of broken compilers. gcc >= 4.1 seems to produce this code with either -Os or -O2 so the range of affected useres might in fact be bigger. > What about the similar code in u32 and cbq? Not affected by this. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
