Hi Denis,
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> Hi Satyam,
>
> On Monday 23 July 2007 17:05, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > There was a lot of bogus stuff that include/asm-i386/bitops.h was doing,
> > that was unnecessary and not required for the correctness of those APIs.
> > All that
Hi Satyam,
On Monday 23 July 2007 17:05, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> There was a lot of bogus stuff that include/asm-i386/bitops.h was doing,
> that was unnecessary and not required for the correctness of those APIs.
> All that superfluous stuff was also unnecessarily disallowing compiler
>
Hi Satyam,
On Monday 23 July 2007 17:05, Satyam Sharma wrote:
There was a lot of bogus stuff that include/asm-i386/bitops.h was doing,
that was unnecessary and not required for the correctness of those APIs.
All that superfluous stuff was also unnecessarily disallowing compiler
optimization
Hi Denis,
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
Hi Satyam,
On Monday 23 July 2007 17:05, Satyam Sharma wrote:
There was a lot of bogus stuff that include/asm-i386/bitops.h was doing,
that was unnecessary and not required for the correctness of those APIs.
All that superfluous
Hi,
There was a lot of bogus stuff that include/asm-i386/bitops.h was doing,
that was unnecessary and not required for the correctness of those APIs.
All that superfluous stuff was also unnecessarily disallowing compiler
optimization possibilities, and making gcc generate code that wasn't as
Hi,
There was a lot of bogus stuff that include/asm-i386/bitops.h was doing,
that was unnecessary and not required for the correctness of those APIs.
All that superfluous stuff was also unnecessarily disallowing compiler
optimization possibilities, and making gcc generate code that wasn't as
6 matches
Mail list logo
