Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:51:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:51:20 -0400 Received: from vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca ([136.159.55.21]:47764 "EHLO vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:51:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:50:54 -0600 Message-Id: <200107232150.f6NLosh13126@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> From: Richard Gooch To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Chris Friesen , Linus Torvalds , Jeff Dike , user-mode-linux-user , linux-kernel , Jan Hubicka Subject: Re: user-mode port 0.44-2.4.7 In-Reply-To: <20010723231136.E16919@athlon.random> In-Reply-To: <3B5C8C96.FE53F5BA@nortelnetworks.com> <20010723231136.E16919@athlon.random> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing Andrea Arcangeli writes: > cases if the code breaks in the actual usages of xtime it is likely that > gcc is doing something stupid in terms of performance. but GCC if it > wants to is allowed to compile this code: > > printf("%lx\n", xtime.tv_sec); > > as: > > unsigned long sec = xtime.tv_sec; > if (sec != xtime.tv_sec) > BUG(); > printf("%lx\n", sec); And if it does that, it's stupid. Why on earth would GCC add extra code to check if a value hasn't changed? I want it to produce efficient code. What's next? Wrap checking? printk ("You've just wrapped an integer: press [ENTER] to confirm, [NT] to ignore "); Regards, Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca - 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/