From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/13] Qsort
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:22:13 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>,
       Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>, Olaf Kirch <okir@suse.de>,
       "Andries E. Brouwer" <Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
References: <20050122203326.402087000@blunzn.suse.de> <200501230608.36501.agruen@suse.de> <20050123053255.GT12076@waste.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050123053255.GT12076@waste.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200501231322.14332.agruen@suse.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 655
Lines: 14

On Sunday 23 January 2005 06:32, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Yes, indeed. Though I think even here, we'd prefer to use kmalloc
> because gcc generates suboptimal code for variable-sized stack vars.

That's ridiculous. kmalloc isn't even close to whatever suboptimal code gcc 
might produce here. Also I'm not convinced that gcc generates bad code in the 
first place. The code I get makes perfect sense.

-- Andreas.
-
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/