lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: build failure


On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> the fix is simple enough.
>
> but the question is, wont it generate huge artificial stackframes with
> CONFIG_MAXSMP and NR_CPUS=4096?

Quite the reverse.

The "address-of statement expression" is the one that is more likely to
generate artificial stack-frames because of a temporary variable (of
course, I wouldn't count on it, since statement expressions are gcc
extensions, and as such the gcc people could make up any semantics they
want to them, including just defining that a statement expression with
an lvalue value is the same lvalue rather than any temporary).

In contrast, "address-of lvalue" is _guaranteed_ to not do anything stupid
like that, and gives just the address-of.

Oh, and I was wrong about the &*x losing the 'const'. It doesn't. So I
think Stephen's patch is fine after all - if somebody tries to modify the
end result through the pointer, it will give a big compiler warning.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-29 18:39    [W:5.411 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site