Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

[Ingo Molnar - Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:01:27PM +0100] | | * Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | > Checkpatch still does complain about | > if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val) | > I'm not sure if we need this line at all. | | that's a type-checking trick. It does not result in any

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

* Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Checkpatch still does complain about > if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val) > I'm not sure if we need this line at all. that's a type-checking trick. It does not result in any generated code but gcc flags it with a build time warning if there's

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

* Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, I've tried to make a one ;) It's over last (today synced) linus > tree. thanks, applied :-) Some small details: i had to hand-apply your patch to the x86.git#mm tree (see the instructions below how to fetch that tree). It's best (for us

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

[Ingo Molnar - Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 03:53:17PM +0100] | | * Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | > > good catch! Applied your patch to x86.git - queued it up for | > > v2.6.25. I bet there are tons of other instances where we use signed | > > instead of unsigned and get worse code

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

* Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > good catch! Applied your patch to x86.git - queued it up for > > v2.6.25. I bet there are tons of other instances where we use signed > > instead of unsigned and get worse code generation. > > Yes, definitely. This patch was kind of a testing one

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

>>> Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 17.12.07 14:26 >>> > >* Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This generally allows better code to be generated, since the zero- >> extension during 32-bit operations comes for free (needed when the >> result is used as array index or similar), whereas

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

* Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This generally allows better code to be generated, since the zero- > extension during 32-bit operations comes for free (needed when the > result is used as array index or similar), whereas sign extension must > be done explicitly and frequently

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

* Jan Beulich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This generally allows better code to be generated, since the zero- extension during 32-bit operations comes for free (needed when the result is used as array index or similar), whereas sign extension must be done explicitly and frequently requires a

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] 17.12.07 14:26 * Jan Beulich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This generally allows better code to be generated, since the zero- extension during 32-bit operations comes for free (needed when the result is used as array index or similar), whereas sign extension must

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

* Jan Beulich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: good catch! Applied your patch to x86.git - queued it up for v2.6.25. I bet there are tons of other instances where we use signed instead of unsigned and get worse code generation. Yes, definitely. This patch was kind of a testing one whether

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

[Ingo Molnar - Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 03:53:17PM +0100] | | * Jan Beulich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | good catch! Applied your patch to x86.git - queued it up for | v2.6.25. I bet there are tons of other instances where we use signed | instead of unsigned and get worse code generation. |

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

* Cyrill Gorcunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've tried to make a one ;) It's over last (today synced) linus tree. thanks, applied :-) Some small details: i had to hand-apply your patch to the x86.git#mm tree (see the instructions below how to fetch that tree). It's best (for us

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

* Cyrill Gorcunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Checkpatch still does complain about if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val) I'm not sure if we need this line at all. that's a type-checking trick. It does not result in any generated code but gcc flags it with a build time warning if there's a

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

[Ingo Molnar - Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:01:27PM +0100] | | * Cyrill Gorcunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Checkpatch still does complain about | if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val) | I'm not sure if we need this line at all. | | that's a type-checking trick. It does not result in any

[PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

This generally allows better code to be generated, since the zero- extension during 32-bit operations comes for free (needed when the result is used as array index or similar), whereas sign extension must be done explicitly and frequently requires a one byte larger instruction due to the necessary

[PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned

This generally allows better code to be generated, since the zero- extension during 32-bit operations comes for free (needed when the result is used as array index or similar), whereas sign extension must be done explicitly and frequently requires a one byte larger instruction due to the necessary