Hey all,
Time for attempt #2!
Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to better
detect dead code (functions, variables, etc) and makes it easier for
the compiler to optimize; e.g., since it knows a function will only
called once it can inline code; or not output a symbol for a cert
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Time for attempt #2!
>
> Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to better
> detect dead code (functions, variables, etc) and makes it easier for
> the compiler to optimize; e.g., since it knows a function
On 27 April 2013 09:06, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10:41AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
>>
>> > Hey all,
>> >
>> > Time for attempt #2!
>> >
>> > Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to b
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:12:21AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 27 April 2013 09:06, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10:41AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey all,
> >> >
> >> > Time for attemp
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10:41AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Time for attempt #2!
> >
> > Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to better
> > detect dead code (functions, variables, etc) and
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
>
>> Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to better
>> detect dead code (functions, variables, etc) and makes it easier for
>> the compiler to optimize; e.g., since i
On Apr 27, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
>>
>>> Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to better
>>> detect dead code (functions, variables, etc) and makes
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:09:25PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
> >>
> >>> Adding static to internal function allows the
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:09:25PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> On backtrace(3) (which is a GNU thing, I know), static functions don't
> show up with their respective names even though they are in the binary.
> That's a tad annoying, but I am not aware of any other limitation. Can
> someone plea
On Apr 27, 2013, at 9:28 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:09:25PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>> On backtrace(3) (which is a GNU thing, I know), static functions don't
>> show up with their respective names even though they are in the binary.
>> That's a tad annoying,
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:14:59PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:09:25PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, E
> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:36:31 -0400
> From: Ted Unangst
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
> >
> >> Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to better
> >> detect dead code (functions, variable
On 27 April 2013 15:38, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:14:59PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:09:25PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 27, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:12:21AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
> FWIW I don't believe this sort of patch significantly affects
> debugging because that should be done with -O0 -g anyways.
Bwahahaha
You're lucky to not run into compiler bugs that only show up with -O2.
Good luck figuring THOSE out w
On 28 April 2013 15:25, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:12:21AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> FWIW I don't believe this sort of patch significantly affects
>> debugging because that should be done with -O0 -g anyways.
>
> Bwahahaha
>
> You're lucky to not run into compiler bugs that
15 matches
Mail list logo