[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?
>> So back to the original task for you: Show me in the generated output where the benefits are.

I can offer another bit of information for this software development discussion.

The following build settings were active in my "Makefile" for this Linux test case.

HOSTCFLAGS = -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes -O0 -fomit-frame-pointer -std=gnu89

The afffected source files can be compiled for the processor architecture "x86_64"
by a tool like "GCC 6.2.1+r239849-1.4" from the software distribution
"openSUSE Tumbleweed" with the following command example.

my_original=${my_build_dir}unchanged/test/ \
&& my_fixing=${my_build_dir}patched/test/ \
&& mkdir -p ${my_original} ${my_fixing} \
&& my_cc=/usr/bin/gcc-6 \
&& my_module=drivers/md/raid1.s \
&& git checkout next-20161014 \
&& make -j6 O="${my_original}" HOSTCC="${my_cc}" allmodconfig ${my_module} \
&& git checkout next_usage_of_seq_putc_in_md_raid_1 \
&& make -j6 O="${my_fixing}" HOSTCC="${my_cc}" allmodconfig ${my_module} \
&& diff -u "${my_original}${my_module}" "${my_fixing}${my_module}" > "${my_build_dir}assembler_code_comparison_$(date -I)_1.diff"

Unfortunately, the generated file got the size "311 KiB". I guess that
this is too big to send such a file around on the Linux mailing list.

Is this kind of assembler code comparison still useful to clarify relevant
differences further?


 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-20 14:27    [W:0.777 / U:2.916 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site