Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265805AbUFXQCm (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:02:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265806AbUFXQCl (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:02:41 -0400 Received: from zeus.kernel.org ([204.152.189.113]:5838 "EHLO zeus.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265805AbUFXQCe (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:02:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:41:04 -0400 From: Ben Collins To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org Subject: Re: using gcc built-ins for bitops? Message-ID: <20040624134103.GB9774@phunnypharm.org> References: <20040624070936.GB30057@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20040624020022.0601d4ae.akpm@osdl.org> <20040624090605.GA11805@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040624090605.GA11805@devserv.devel.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 911 Lines: 19 > Perhaps. It's not impossible that say gcc 3.5 will add a few more builtins > even that then allow more functions to be converted, otoh that shouldn't be > impossible to cope with. I'll have a look to see how it pans out. You could have an asm-generic/bitops-builtin.h and arch's could #include that after defining all the HAVE_BUILTIN_xxx macros they want. I suspect not all architectures will get the most correct built-ins (e.g. the arch may be able to optimize better than gcc's builtin is doing). -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/ - 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/