[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:0.066 / U:23.420 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site