On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 08:25 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
> []
> > > It might make sense for this sort of check to be
> > > added to coccinelle or maybe as a compiler warning
> > > when the struct is larger than
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 08:25 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
> []
> > > It might make sense for this sort of check to be
> > > added to coccinelle or maybe as a compiler warning
> > > when the struct is larger than
(unintentionally sent partial reply, better now)
On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 08:25 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > It might make sense for this sort of check to be
> > added to coccinelle or maybe as a compiler warning
> > when the struct is larger than some
(unintentionally sent partial reply, better now)
On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 08:25 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > It might make sense for this sort of check to be
> > added to coccinelle or maybe as a compiler warning
> > when the struct is larger than some
On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 08:25 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > It might make sense for this sort of check to be
> > added to coccinelle or maybe as a compiler warning
> > when the struct is larger than some size.
> >
> > Original thread for Julia:
> >
On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 08:25 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > It might make sense for this sort of check to be
> > added to coccinelle or maybe as a compiler warning
> > when the struct is larger than some size.
> >
> > Original thread for Julia:
> >
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 10:21 +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Joe Perches Sent: 27 July 2018 11:09
> > > On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 10:04 +, David Laight wrote:
> > > > From: Andrew Morton Sent: 26 July 2018 20:28
> > > > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 10:21 +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Joe Perches Sent: 27 July 2018 11:09
> > > On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 10:04 +, David Laight wrote:
> > > > From: Andrew Morton Sent: 26 July 2018 20:28
> > > > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018
On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 10:21 +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Joe Perches Sent: 27 July 2018 11:09
> > On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 10:04 +, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Andrew Morton Sent: 26 July 2018 20:28
> > > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 10:21 +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Joe Perches Sent: 27 July 2018 11:09
> > On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 10:04 +, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Andrew Morton Sent: 26 July 2018 20:28
> > > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > >
From: Joe Perches
> Sent: 27 July 2018 11:09
> On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 10:04 +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Andrew Morton
> > > Sent: 26 July 2018 20:28
> > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll give it a spin, see how noisy it is.
> > >
> > >
From: Joe Perches
> Sent: 27 July 2018 11:09
> On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 10:04 +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Andrew Morton
> > > Sent: 26 July 2018 20:28
> > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll give it a spin, see how noisy it is.
> > >
> > >
On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 10:04 +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton
> > Sent: 26 July 2018 20:28
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'll give it a spin, see how noisy it is.
> >
> > Actually, I would prefer if the message, changelog and title
> >
On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 10:04 +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton
> > Sent: 26 July 2018 20:28
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'll give it a spin, see how noisy it is.
> >
> > Actually, I would prefer if the message, changelog and title
> >
From: Andrew Morton
> Sent: 26 July 2018 20:28
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
> wrote:
>
> > I'll give it a spin, see how noisy it is.
>
> Actually, I would prefer if the message, changelog and title
> used the term "passed by value". It's a more familiar term
> and it is
From: Andrew Morton
> Sent: 26 July 2018 20:28
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
> wrote:
>
> > I'll give it a spin, see how noisy it is.
>
> Actually, I would prefer if the message, changelog and title
> used the term "passed by value". It's a more familiar term
> and it is
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:05:29 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 12:28 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'll give it a spin, see how noisy it is.
> >
> > Actually, I would prefer if the message, changelog and
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:05:29 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 12:28 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'll give it a spin, see how noisy it is.
> >
> > Actually, I would prefer if the message, changelog and
On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 12:28 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
> wrote:
>
> > I'll give it a spin, see how noisy it is.
>
> Actually, I would prefer if the message, changelog and title
> used the term "passed by value". It's a more familiar term
>
On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 12:28 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
> wrote:
>
> > I'll give it a spin, see how noisy it is.
>
> Actually, I would prefer if the message, changelog and title
> used the term "passed by value". It's a more familiar term
>
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
wrote:
> I'll give it a spin, see how noisy it is.
Actually, I would prefer if the message, changelog and title
used the term "passed by value". It's a more familiar term
and it is possible for a passed-by-value aggregate to in fact
be passed
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:25:33 -0700 Andrew Morton
wrote:
> I'll give it a spin, see how noisy it is.
Actually, I would prefer if the message, changelog and title
used the term "passed by value". It's a more familiar term
and it is possible for a passed-by-value aggregate to in fact
be passed
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:27:50 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> I was cc'd on a patch where structs were used on stack instead
> of using pointers to the structs.
"passed by value" is a good term for this practice.
This can cause defects when
> the calling function modifies the stack struct instead
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:27:50 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> I was cc'd on a patch where structs were used on stack instead
> of using pointers to the structs.
"passed by value" is a good term for this practice.
This can cause defects when
> the calling function modifies the stack struct instead
I was cc'd on a patch where structs were used on stack instead
of using pointers to the structs. This can cause defects when
the calling function modifies the stack struct instead of the
calling function's struct.
Possible patch below, but it may be overkill for the number of
instances
where
I was cc'd on a patch where structs were used on stack instead
of using pointers to the structs. This can cause defects when
the calling function modifies the stack struct instead of the
calling function's struct.
Possible patch below, but it may be overkill for the number of
instances
where
26 matches
Mail list logo
