lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] add new DMA_ADDR_T_SIZE define
On 19 Feb 2003, James Bottomley wrote:

> > 3. use run-time checks all over the place, of the
> > "sizeof(dma_addr_t)==sizeof(u64)" kind, which adds unnecessary
> > overhead to
> > all platforms.
>
> Actually, these aren't technically run time checks. Although the cpp
> can't be used for sizeof(), the compiler (at least gcc) does seem to
> have enough sense to optimise away if(..) branches it has enough
> information to know won't be taken at compile time.
>
> As long as this optimisation works, I think the if(sizeof(..)) checks
> are fine for this.

Well, yes and no. Indeed those checks are optimized away, but as a result
of using them most data-access macros must be converted to inline
functions. And, last I heard at least, gcc was optimizing inline functions
much worse than preprocessor macros.

There are various other things that are made easier by a preprocessor
directive -- constructing the right data structures, for instance.

However, if such a patch is ultimately not getting accepted, these checks
is probably what I'll end up using...

Thanks,
Ion

--
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
than to open it and remove all doubt.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.075 / U:7.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site