[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: pre egcs-1.1 testing and Linux 2.1.x
    Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > So how do you explain that one person already stepped up and said he has
    > had a patch for this problem for two years now?

    David S. Miller wrote:
    > This person gave up because Kenner was so hard to work with, hopefully
    > now he'll resubmit his changes to the egcs people and they will go in,
    > and everyone will get what they want and be happy.

    Hmm. I also have some patches (code generation and C++ bug fixes,
    better ix86 code for 64-bit arithmetic, __builtin_constant_p in inline
    functions). These patches are also about 2 years old. And I gave up
    trying to integrate them also due to arguments with Richard Kenner.

    Perhaps he was having a hard time back then?

    Of course, I don't have the time to pursue integration now :-)

    BTW, I have used -mregparm=1 throughout a 250,000 line C++ program and
    only encountered one code generation bug, with an indirect function
    call. In my example (which I reported in May 1997) the bug is quite
    clear. I stopped working on the C++ program within a couple of days of
    reporting that bug, so I had no interest in fixing it.

    Having used -mregparm=1 extensively, I suggest it is actually very
    reliable. -mregparm=2, =3 etc. perhaps not.

    I used -mregparm=1 because it generally produced the smallest code. I
    would have used -mrtd too, if __attribute__((regparm(0),cdecl)) worked
    (it didn't).

    -- Jamie

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.021 / U:63.244 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site