Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 15:30, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
> > Kamil - what's the difference in gcc between -Wframe-larger-than= and
> > -Wstack-size= ?
> >
>
> -Wstack-size doesn't exist?
Sorry, meant -Wstack-usage=
> > I see according to gcc documentation -Wframe-larger-than doesn't count
> > si
On 04.07.2020 14:00, Jaromír Doleček wrote:
> Can anybody using clang please confirm kernel build with
> -Wframe-larger-than=3584?
>
NetBSD-current from today, amd64 GENERIC builds for me.
> Kamil - what's the difference in gcc between -Wframe-larger-than= and
> -Wstack-size= ?
>
-Wstack-size
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 02:00:04PM +0200, Jaromír Dole?ek wrote:
> Can anybody using clang please confirm kernel build with
> -Wframe-larger-than=3584?
Side note: 3584 is inacceptably large, we need to trim it down to ~1k.
Martin
Can anybody using clang please confirm kernel build with
-Wframe-larger-than=3584?
Kamil - what's the difference in gcc between -Wframe-larger-than= and
-Wstack-size= ?
I see according to gcc documentation -Wframe-larger-than doesn't count
size for alloca() and variable-length arrays, which makes
>> I'd say, just use the simple loop. Once you have that much working,
>> *then* worry about things like handling (pseudo-)hardware failures
>> or interrupts, or sleeping instead of busy-waiting.
> The loop works; I honestly think that the bit is cleared in a
> negligible amount of time,
If you'r
On lug 03 20:15, Mouse wrote:
> Then, yes, just loop. First make it work, then make it better.
Ok! I did exactly this way.
> Well, be aware that DELAY() on many machines, especially for small
> arguments, _is_ just a cycle-burning loop - it just multiplies the
> argument by a constant calculate
On lug 04 8:02, Iain Hibbert wrote:
> see pci_intr(9) and look at what a device in dev/pci does. I don't know
> which is 'simple' but sv.c seems pretty simple in what it does with
> interrupts the sv_intr() function is pretty small. You set up the
> interrupt, enable it and your function gets
