On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 12:04:44PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > Why? I'd say it's not better than BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO() use
> > instead of that ?:
>
> Oh, _that_ part I have no problem with. It's more that it seems that the
> gcc optimization is ok at least as an extension.
gcc logs:
* expressions of form <....> can be reduced to cheaper form
by <....>. Tested and merged.
gcc logs a year later:
* revert commit <...>, it causes subtle problems (see PR<....>,
<....> and <....>). Proposed replacement is too intrusive
for stable branch.
gcc logs a month later:
* tested and merged the real fix for PR<....>; will go into the
next release.
foobar logs a year later:
* gcc versions between <...> and <...> refuse to compile baz.c,
complain about non-constant index in initializer. Waded through
the sewers of macros we have in barf.h and blah.h, found what
had been causing that. Fixed.
Ain't fun...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
