On 9/4/16 09:01, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 06:36:56AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> And for all: shall I provide the proof for another archs?
>>
>> For me, Boolean gives additional chance to compiler to improve the code.
>
> Whereas for compiler it gives nothing. Not in those cas
On 9/4/16 09:01, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 06:36:56AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> And for all: shall I provide the proof for another archs?
>>
>> For me, Boolean gives additional chance to compiler to improve the code.
>
> Whereas for compiler it gives nothing. Not in those cas
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 06:36:56AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> And for all: shall I provide the proof for another archs?
>
> For me, Boolean gives additional chance to compiler to improve the code.
Whereas for compiler it gives nothing. Not in those cases.
> If the compiler can not improve the c
On 9/3/16 08:07, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 04:33 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 9/2/16 04:43, Al Viro wrote:
Can you show a proof that it actually improves anything? He who proposes
a patch gets to defend it, not the other way round...
Al, bloody annoyed
>> OK,
On 09/02/2016 04:33 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 9/2/16 04:43, Al Viro wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:05AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> >
>>> >> Could you provide the related proof?
>>> >>
>>> >> Or shall I try to analyze about it and get proof?
>> >
>> > Can you show a proof that it actual
On 9/2/16 04:43, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:05AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> Could you provide the related proof?
>>
>> Or shall I try to analyze about it and get proof?
>
> Can you show a proof that it actually improves anything? He who proposes
> a patch gets to defend it
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:05AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> Could you provide the related proof?
>
> Or shall I try to analyze about it and get proof?
Can you show a proof that it actually improves anything? He who proposes
a patch gets to defend it, not the other way round...
Al, bloody anno
On 8/29/16 21:03, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 28 August 2016, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
>> From: Chen Gang
>>
>> Also use the same changing to asm-generic, and also use bool variable
>> instead of int variable for mips, mn10300, parisc and tile related
>> functions, and also avoid che
On 8/30/16 00:48, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 08/29/2016 06:03 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Sunday 28 August 2016, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
>>> From: Chen Gang
>>>
>>> Also use the same changing to asm-generic, and also use bool variable
>>> instead of int variable for mips, mn10300, paris
On 08/29/2016 06:03 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 28 August 2016, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
>> From: Chen Gang
>>
>> Also use the same changing to asm-generic, and also use bool variable
>> instead of int variable for mips, mn10300, parisc and tile related
>> functions, and also avoi
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 03:03:41PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> - Change the Documentation/atomic_ops.txt file accordingly
>
> Not sure that really matters; that document is so out of date its nearly
> useless :-(
>
> Rewriting it is somew
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 03:03:41PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> - Change the Documentation/atomic_ops.txt file accordingly
Not sure that really matters; that document is so out of date its nearly
useless :-(
Rewriting it is somewhere on the TODO list...
On Sunday 28 August 2016, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
> From: Chen Gang
>
> Also use the same changing to asm-generic, and also use bool variable
> instead of int variable for mips, mn10300, parisc and tile related
> functions, and also avoid checkpatch.pl to report ERROR.
>
> Originally, e
On Sun 28-08-16 13:39:15, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
> From: Chen Gang
>
> Also use the same changing to asm-generic, and also use bool variable
> instead of int variable for mips, mn10300, parisc and tile related
> functions, and also avoid checkpatch.pl to report ERROR.
>
> Originally, e
Hello all:
I have tried m68k and aarch64, they need include linux/types.h just like
another archs have done (e.g. arc). And then they can pass building for
the default config.
For alpha, it can pass building with my alpha cross compiler (gcc 5.0),
but for safety reason, we'd better let it include
Hi Chen,
[auto build test WARNING on linus/master]
[also build test WARNING on v4.8-rc3 next-20160825]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
[Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for
convenience) to record w
Hi Chen,
[auto build test ERROR on linus/master]
[also build test ERROR on v4.8-rc3 next-20160825]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
[Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for
convenience) to record what
Hi Chen,
[auto build test WARNING on linus/master]
[also build test WARNING on v4.8-rc3 next-20160825]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
[Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for
convenience) to record w
From: Chen Gang
Also use the same changing to asm-generic, and also use bool variable
instead of int variable for mips, mn10300, parisc and tile related
functions, and also avoid checkpatch.pl to report ERROR.
Originally, except powerpc and xtensa, all another architectures intend
to return 0 or
19 matches
Mail list logo
