Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:18:59 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Bernardo Innocenti <bernie@develer.com>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Peter Chubb <peter@chubb.wattle.id.au>, Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
       Ian Molton <spyro@f2s.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix do_div() for all architectures
Message-ID: <20030710161859.GP16313@dualathlon.random>
References: <200307060133.15312.bernie@develer.com> <200307070626.08215.bernie@develer.com> <200307082027.26233.bernie@develer.com> <20030710154019.GA18697@twiddle.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030710154019.GA18697@twiddle.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 873
Lines: 20

On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 08:40:19AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 08:27:26PM +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> > +extern uint32_t __div64_32(uint64_t *dividend, uint32_t divisor)
> > __attribute_pure__;
> ...
> > +		__rem = __div64_32(&(n), __base);	\
> 
> The pure declaration is very incorrect.  You're writing to N.

now pure sounds more reasonable, I wondered how could gcc keep track of
the stuff pointed by the parameters (especially if this stuff points to
other stuff etc.. ;). So only the pointer passed as parameter can
change, not the memory pointed by the pointer as in this case.

Andrea
-
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/