[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: page_launder() bug
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 09:52:15AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> > Isn't this asking for trouble with the optimizer ? It could kill both
> > !!. Using that is like trusting on a certain struct padding-alignment.
> No, this won't cause trouble with the optimizer, because the
> optimizer isn't supposed to do _wrong_ things.

Right. The optimizer proves equivalence of terms and exchange the
one that are bad for the optimization goal (e.g performance,
speed, size) against the one that works more towards this goal.

Everything else is an optimizer BUG, which should be reported and

The C{89,99} standard now defines the syntax and semantics of
theses terms.

Relevant for the optimizer: possible values of terms, assumptions
made on the static and dynamic behavior of these terms (add
anything I forgot).

So the optimizer should NEVER cause trouble if you write
completely valid C{89,99} and the compiler and environment
implement 100% of the semantics of it.

Compiler specific features should be seen as an addition to the
standard on this compiler. They follow the same rules stated


Ingo Oeser
10.+11.03.2001 - 3. Chemnitzer LinuxTag <>
<<<<<<<<<<<< been there and had much fun >>>>>>>>>>>>
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 12:52    [W:0.064 / U:1.884 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site