On 2018-09-04 13:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 02:08:59PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:16:21PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>>> It's not clear what's so horrible about emitting a function call to
>>> handle a run-time sized bitmap. Moreover, gcc al
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 02:08:59PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:16:21PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > It's not clear what's so horrible about emitting a function call to
> > handle a run-time sized bitmap. Moreover, gcc also emits a function call
> > for a compile-time
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:16:21PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> It's not clear what's so horrible about emitting a function call to
> handle a run-time sized bitmap. Moreover, gcc also emits a function call
> for a compile-time-constant-but-huge nbits, so the comment isn't even
> accurate.
>
>
It's not clear what's so horrible about emitting a function call to
handle a run-time sized bitmap. Moreover, gcc also emits a function call
for a compile-time-constant-but-huge nbits, so the comment isn't even
accurate.
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes
---
include/linux/bitmap.h | 4 ++--
1 file
4 matches
Mail list logo