Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:56:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:56:29 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:18195 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:56:28 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 03:02:29 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: "Nakajima, Jun" Cc: Andi Kleen , "David S. Miller" , torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Mallick, Asit K" , "Saxena, Sunil" Subject: Re: [PATCH] fixes for building kernel using Intel compiler Message-ID: <20021019030229.A31702@wotan.suse.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 910 Lines: 23 On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:45:08PM -0700, Nakajima, Jun wrote: > No, it removes most of such cases. It happens only for a general boolean > controlling expression, and this is the only spot as far as we tested. But So it would be optimized away if changed to if ((offsetof(struct task_struct, thread.i387.fxsave) & 15) != 0) { ? > our argument is that the checking code is not required because > thread.i387.fxsave is __attribute__ ((aligned (16))). If __attribute__ > ((aligned (...))) is broken, we should see more problems. I think it would be better to keep the check, even with attribute aligned. These bugs are nasty to debug when they happen. -Andi - 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/