Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265718AbUFXPap (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:30:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265701AbUFXPap (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:30:45 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:22696 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265718AbUFXPak (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:30:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:30:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Arjan van de Ven cc: Jakub Jelinek , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: using gcc built-ins for bitops? In-Reply-To: <20040624123515.GD21376@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20040624070936.GB30057@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20040624020022.0601d4ae.akpm@osdl.org> <20040624113151.GA21376@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20040624120534.GW21264@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20040624123515.GD21376@devserv.devel.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 842 Lines: 21 On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > It's actually fine; the architecture first needs to include this file and > there it can use the proper ifdefs; the functions themselves don't matter, > only when they can be used, and the arch still controls that. And my argument is: what the hell does this _buy_ us, except for extra complexity, and even more code dependence on different versions of gcc. I don't want the extra code-paths and magic #ifdef's unless there's a clear improvement somewhere. And quite frankly, I don't see that being the case for something like ffs. Linus - 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/