On 11/30/2015 01:29 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
./arch/alpha/boot/main.c:187:1-4: no-op delay loop
Not sure why this is there. The runkernel function that preceeds it cannot
return, having performed an indirect branch (not a call) to the kernel start.
I see no reason to actually change anyt
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:29:26PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> OK, thanks. That's a very very long time ago.
>
> FWIW, the remaining instances that my trivial coccinelle script found
> are
After your initial report I also wrote a coccinelle which is looking
also for delay loops implemented
On Monday 30 November 2015 22:29:26 Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>
> OK, thanks. That's a very very long time ago.
>
> FWIW, the remaining instances that my trivial coccinelle script found
> are
>
> ./arch/alpha/boot/main.c:187:1-4: no-op delay loop
> ./arch/m68k/68000/m68VZ328.c:86:10-13: no-op dela
On Fri, Nov 27 2015, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 27 November 2015 09:53:50 Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>>
>> It seems that gcc happily compiles
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) ;
>>
>> into simply
>>
>> i = 10;
>>
>> (which is then usually eliminated as a dead store). At least
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 09:53:50AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> It seems that gcc happily compiles
>
> for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) ;
>
> into simply
>
> i = 10;
>
> (which is then usually eliminated as a dead store). At least at -O2, and
> when i is not declared volatile. So i
On Friday 27 November 2015 09:53:50 Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>
> It seems that gcc happily compiles
>
> for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) ;
>
> into simply
>
> i = 10;
>
> (which is then usually eliminated as a dead store). At least at -O2, and
> when i is not declared volatile. So it wo
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, yalin wang wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 16:53, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> It seems that gcc happily compiles
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) ;
>>
>> into simply
>>
>> i = 10;
>>
>> (which is then usually eliminated as a dead store). At least at -
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 16:53, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It seems that gcc happily compiles
>
> for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) ;
>
> into simply
>
> i = 10;
>
> (which is then usually eliminated as a dead store). At least at -O2, and
> when i is not declared volatile. So i
Hi,
It seems that gcc happily compiles
for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i) ;
into simply
i = 10;
(which is then usually eliminated as a dead store). At least at -O2, and
when i is not declared volatile. So it would seem that the loops at
arch/mips/pci/pci-rt2880.c:235
arch/mips/pmcs-msp7
9 matches
Mail list logo