On 8/23/2018 2:07 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 8/1/2018 10:03 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 18:03:04 +0000 >> Yongseok Koh <ys...@mellanox.com> wrote: >> >>>> On Jul 31, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Stephen Hemminger >>>> <step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:48:40 +0200 >>>> Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 09:30:54AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>>>>> Declaring variables as register in C is a leftover from an earlier >>>>>> era (like cassette tape decks in cars). >>>>> >>>>> I don't agree here. It's a hint for compilers and developers that the >>>>> address of such variables won't be needed (and cannot be taken) to enable >>>>> whatever optimizations are possible knowing this. >>>>> >>>>> Somewhat like inline functions, it's not a forced optimization, just a >>>>> useful hint that shouldn't hurt if used wisely. >>>>> >>>>> Besides, cassette decks are not dead yet :) >>>> >>>> If you look at the code, that is not how register is being used (ie. don't >>>> take >>>> address of this). It seems like an attempt at optimization. >>> >>> I know compilers are smart enough and the occurrences in mlx4/5 were made >>> from >>> my old fashioned habit. But, I don't see any urgency to push this patch in >>> RC >>> stage even though I'm 99% sure that it is harmless. And in general I don't >>> even >>> understand why we can't live with that if it isn't harmful (or a violation) >>> but >>> informative. I mean no badness but at least one goodness :-) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Yongseok >>> >> >> Sure, this is intended for next release not rc stage. >> Just trying to clean up code base where I see it. > > I agree with Yongseok, at worst they show the intention of the developer, I > don't see motivation to remove them unless they are doing something wrong, > which > seems not the reason of this patch. > > And although I found some information that says "register" ignored completely > for gcc, I can see it differs when optimization disabled. > I am not saying practically it differs, since we enable optimization expect > from > debugging, most probably there is no practical difference between having the > keyword or not, but what I am trying to say is it not completely ignored > either.
I am for marking this set as rejected, any objection?
