>> So back to the original task for you: Show me in the generated output where
>> the benefits are.
I can offer another bit of information for this software development discussion.
The following build settings were active in my "Makefile" for this Linux test
case.
…
HOSTCFLAGS = -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes -O0
-fomit-frame-pointer -std=gnu89
…
The afffected source files can be compiled for the processor architecture
"x86_64"
by a tool like "GCC 6.2.1+r239849-1.4" from the software distribution
"openSUSE Tumbleweed" with the following command example.
my_original=${my_build_dir}unchanged/test/ \
&& my_fixing=${my_build_dir}patched/test/ \
&& mkdir -p ${my_original} ${my_fixing} \
&& my_cc=/usr/bin/gcc-6 \
&& my_module=drivers/md/raid1.s \
&& git checkout next-20161014 \
&& make -j6 O="${my_original}" HOSTCC="${my_cc}" allmodconfig ${my_module} \
&& git checkout next_usage_of_seq_putc_in_md_raid_1 \
&& make -j6 O="${my_fixing}" HOSTCC="${my_cc}" allmodconfig ${my_module} \
&& diff -u "${my_original}${my_module}" "${my_fixing}${my_module}" >
"${my_build_dir}assembler_code_comparison_$(date -I)_1.diff"
Unfortunately, the generated file got the size "311 KiB". I guess that
this is too big to send such a file around on the Linux mailing list.
Is this kind of assembler code comparison still useful to clarify relevant
differences further?
Regards,
Markus
