* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> (a) the "official" rules are completely pointless, and make sense
> only because the standard is written for some random "abstract
> machine" that doesn't actually exist.
Presuming the intent of the abstract machine specification is to avoid
being seen as biased to
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [...]
>
> And I realize that compiler people tend to think that loop
> hoisting etc is absolutely critical for performance, and some
> big hammer like "barrier()" makes a compiler person wince. You
> think it results in horrible code generation problems.
>
> It rea
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Admittedly, anybody who compiles with -pg probably doesn't care deeply
> about smaller and more efficient code, since the mcount call overhead
> tends to make the thing moot anyway, but it really looks like a
> win-win situation to just fix the mcount call sequence r
* Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 19:47 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > Admittedly, anybody who compiles with -pg probably doesn't care deeply
> > > about smaller and more efficient code, since the mcount
than on x86-64, where
GENERIC_CPU is part of the choice construct, X86_GENERIC is a
separate option on ix86).
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Acked-by: Ravikiran Thirumalai
Acked-by: Nick Piggin
LKML-Reference: <4afd571002780001f...@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molna
* Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Ingo, Thomas and Linus,
>
> I know Thomas did a patch to force the -mtune=generic, but just in
> case gcc decides to do something crazy again, this patch will catch
> it.
>
> Should we try to get this in now?
Very nice example of defensive coding - i like this. I'v
* Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:55:49PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > you should compile your code with -maccumulate-outgoing-args, and
> > > > there's
> > > > no need to use -mtune=generic. Is that right?
> > >
>
* Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:55:49PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >
* Alex Shi wrote:
> > I think the check should be (__alignof__(lock) <
> > __alignof__(rwlock_t)), otherwise it will still pass when
> > you have structure with attribute((packed,aligned(2)))
>
> reasonable!
>
> >> 1, it is alignof bug for default gcc on my fc15 and Ubuntu 11.10 etc?
> >>
>
* Alex Shi wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 14:39 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Alex Shi wrote:
> >
> > > > I think the check should be (__alignof__(lock) <
> > > > __alignof__(rwlock_t)), otherwise it will still pass when
> > > &g
10 matches
Mail list logo
