On 07/26/2013 06:05 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> On 07/23/2013 05:36 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> (the crazies can keep a separate patch to remove even more of BUG() to win
>>> a K or two.)
>>>
>>
>> Excuse me, my English is not quite well, I do not quite understand your
>>
* Chen Gang wrote:
> On 07/23/2013 05:36 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > (the crazies can keep a separate patch to remove even more of BUG() to win
> > a K or two.)
> >
>
> Excuse me, my English is not quite well, I do not quite understand your
> meaning, could you please repeat again in detai
On 07/23/2013 05:36 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> (the crazies can keep a separate patch to remove even more of BUG() to win
> a K or two.)
>
Excuse me, my English is not quite well, I do not quite understand your
meaning, could you please repeat again in details or say more clearly ?
Thanks.
--
On 07/23/2013 02:36 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> Well, there are three alternatives here, right:
>>
>> 1. We can use unreachable(), which means that the compiler can assume it
>> never happens.
>
> AFAICS this is dangerous as it loses warnings and moves execution into
> la-la-land without any obv
* H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 03:27 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:16:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> I've been thinking for a while that CONFIG_BUG=n is a pretty dumb thing
> >> to do, and that maintaining it (and trying to fix the warnings it
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:35:16PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 03:27 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:16:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> I've been thinking for a while that CONFIG_BUG=n is a pretty dumb thing
> >> to do, and that maintaining
On 07/15/2013 03:27 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:16:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> I've been thinking for a while that CONFIG_BUG=n is a pretty dumb thing
>> to do, and that maintaining it (and trying to fix the warnings it
>> produces) aren't worth the effo
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:16:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I've been thinking for a while that CONFIG_BUG=n is a pretty dumb thing
> to do, and that maintaining it (and trying to fix the warnings it
> produces) aren't worth the effort and that we should remove the whole
> thing. Perhaps your
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 17:38:35 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I've run some size analyis using the ARM 'multi_v7_defconfig'
> and gcc-4.8, using various definitions for BUG() and BUG_ON(), to
> see how big the size improvement actually gets
>
> 1. Baseline: normal bug plus CONFIG_BUG_VERBOSE
>tex
* Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I've run some size analyis using the ARM 'multi_v7_defconfig'
> and gcc-4.8, using various definitions for BUG() and BUG_ON(), to
> see how big the size improvement actually gets
>
> 1. Baseline: normal bug plus CONFIG_BUG_VERBOSE
>textdata bss dec h
I've run some size analyis using the ARM 'multi_v7_defconfig'
and gcc-4.8, using various definitions for BUG() and BUG_ON(), to
see how big the size improvement actually gets
1. Baseline: normal bug plus CONFIG_BUG_VERBOSE
textdata bss dec hex filename
3743196 224396 206812 41
11 matches
Mail list logo