On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 03:21:06PM -0800, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Well, that probably would work, but it's also true that returning a 64-bit
> > value on a 32-bit platform really _does_ depend on more than the size.
>
> Yeah, obviously this is restricted to the signed-integer case. My point
> was just that you could have the compiler figure out which variant to pick
> for loff_t automatically.
>
> > "let's not play tricks with function types at all".
>
> I think I agree. The real (but harder) fix for the wasted space issue
> would be to get the toolchain to automatically combine functions that
> end up compiling into identical assembly.
Can't do.
int f(void)
{
return 0;
}
int g(void)
{
return 0;
}
int is_f(int (*p)(void))
{
return p == f;
}
main()
{
printf("%d %d\n", is_f(f), is_f(g));
}
would better produce
1 0
for anything resembling a sane C compiler. Comparing pointers to
functions for equality is a well-defined operation and it's not
to be messed with.
You _can_ compile g into jump to f, but that's it. And that, AFAICS,
is what gcc does.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
