On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 21:56:00 +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> There's really no reason for the gd pointer to have the volatile
> qualifier.
>
> In fact, I claim that it's completely unnecessary and just pessimizes
> code generation and forces ugly casts in lots of places. For example,
> see the c
On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 10:40:58PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04 2025, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:56:00PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> >> There's really no reason for the gd pointer to have the volatile
> >> qualifier.
> >>
> >> In fact, I claim that i
On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 02:07:02PM -0600, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:56:00PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > There's really no reason for the gd pointer to have the volatile
> > qualifier.
> >
> > In fact, I claim that it's completely unnecessary and just pessimizes
> > code g
On Wed, Jun 04 2025, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:56:00PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> There's really no reason for the gd pointer to have the volatile
>> qualifier.
>>
>> In fact, I claim that it's completely unnecessary and just pessimizes
>> code generation and forces ugl
On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:56:00PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> There's really no reason for the gd pointer to have the volatile
> qualifier.
>
> In fact, I claim that it's completely unnecessary and just pessimizes
> code generation and forces ugly casts in lots of places. For example,
> see
There's really no reason for the gd pointer to have the volatile
qualifier.
In fact, I claim that it's completely unnecessary and just pessimizes
code generation and forces ugly casts in lots of places. For example,
see the casts in drivers/core/tag.c where elements are added to
gd->dm_taglist, or
6 matches
Mail list logo