On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 01:28:45PM +1200, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > else > a = 5; > 10: c7 05 00 00 00 00 05 movl $0x5,0x0 In current GCC, this is optimised away even at -O0, because it's generally quicker to do dead code elimination than to emit the dead code at all. Tim. */ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- if (CONFIG_FOO) Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 i... Martin MaD Douda
- Re: if (CONFIG_FOO) Re: 2.4.0-test... Alexander Viro
- Re: if (CONFIG_FOO) Re: 2.4.0-test... Russell King
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / ho... Peter Samuelson
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / how ab... Peter Rival
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / ho... Andi Kleen
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad ... Mark H. Wood
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / how about i... Alexander Viro
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / how ab... Alan Cox
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / ho... Alexander Viro
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / how ab... Tim Waugh
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / how ab... Jamie Lokier
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / how about i... Michael Elizabeth Chastain
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / how ab... Alexander Viro
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / ho... Martin Dalecki
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad ... Alexander Viro
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite ... Martin Dalecki
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / how ab... Linus Torvalds
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / ho... Pavel Machek
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / how ab... Christoph Hellwig
- Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / how about i... Michael Elizabeth Chastain