Applied. I'll put this to 4.14 PR.
/Jarkko
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 08:18:59PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Ugh. I'll apply this. My apologies.
>
> /Jarkko
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:21:45AM +0200, msuchanek wrote:
> > ping?
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:35:16 +0100
> > Michal Suchanek
Ugh. I'll apply this. My apologies.
/Jarkko
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:21:45AM +0200, msuchanek wrote:
> ping?
>
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:35:16 +0100
> Michal Suchanek wrote:
>
> > The crq is passed in registers and is the same on BE and LE hosts.
> > However, current implementation allocates
ping?
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:35:16 +0100
Michal Suchanek wrote:
> The crq is passed in registers and is the same on BE and LE hosts.
> However, current implementation allocates a structure on-stack to
> represent the crq, initializes the members swapping them to BE, and
> loads the structure swa
The crq is passed in registers and is the same on BE and LE hosts.
However, current implementation allocates a structure on-stack to
represent the crq, initializes the members swapping them to BE, and
loads the structure swapping it from BE. This is pointless and causes
GCC warnings about ununitial
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 03:17:34PM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>
> The crq is passed in registers so is the same on BE and LE hosts.
's/ so// ' ?
> However, current implementation allocates a structure on-stack to
> represent the crq, initializes the members swapping them to BE, and
> loads th
The crq is passed in registers so is the same on BE and LE hosts.
However, current implementation allocates a structure on-stack to
represent the crq, initializes the members swapping them to BE, and
loads the structure swapping it from BE. This is pointless and causes
GCC warnings about ununitial
