[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [IDEA+RFC] Possible solution for min()/max() war
    "A month of sundays ago David Woodhouse wrote:"
    > said:
    > > You got me curious enough to try it. It compiles and links fine with
    > > -O1 and higher under
    > > gcc version 2.95.2 20000220 (Debian GNU/Linux)
    > > gcc version 2.8.1
    > > gcc version
    > Oh well, then it _must_ be safe then - gcc has never changed unspecified
    > behaviour on us before, has it?

    Well, I understand what you mean, but if the linux kernel wants it
    and the C spec doesn't forbid it, then it'll either stay that way
    or an "official" way will be found of evoking the desired behaviour.

    The kernel already relies on -O1 expanding outb().

    > The gcc engineer who took one look at the __buggy_udelay cruft, raised his
    > eyebrows, swore and wandered off muttering must just have been having a bad
    > day or something.

    Actually, I was a bit more worried that

    const unsigned int i = 1;
    if (i < 0)

    would generate warnings about the comparison always failing. But it
    doesn't, at least not with -Wall. It does generate a warning about
    implicitly declaring the function foo()! So I guess one has to add a
    decl for it just above the call. But it doesn't emit code for the call
    itself, so the link is fine.

    OTOH I now can't get #__LINE__ to expand as I want it where I want it.

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:01    [W:0.040 / U:12.532 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site