On 26.01.2007 [11:24:16 -0800], Dave Hansen wrote: > On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 11:01 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > I see what you're saying now. You're right that it's a bit fragile to > > rely on an extra function call to cause the alloca() loop to be > > optimized out, but we've so far avoided too much assembly in the > > source. > > Although they say "asm(..)", remember that they aren't real assembly. > They're completely gcc-portable. In the kernel, they are in > include/linux/compiler-gcc.h, not in a specific arch's directory. > > Granted it is a compiler "trick", but is is a very commonly accepted an > relied-upon one.
Good point. I'll leave it to Adam to decide (he's out of town, though, so won't be until Monday). Thanks, Nish -- Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Libhugetlbfs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
