Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754202AbZFEJi3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 05:38:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751892AbZFEJiW (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 05:38:22 -0400 Received: from outbound-sin.frontbridge.com ([207.46.51.80]:46233 "EHLO SG2EHSOBE006.bigfish.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751165AbZFEJiV (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 05:38:21 -0400 X-SpamScore: -42 X-BigFish: VPS-42(z21eWz1432R98dR14ffO936eN1805M103dK873fn241fmzz1202hzzz32i6bh17ch43j61h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 X-WSS-ID: 0KKRERO-02-5N4-01 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:37:25 +0200 From: Andreas Herrmann To: Andrew Morton CC: Tetsuo Handa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [2.6.30-rc8] gcc 3.3 : __udivdi3 undefined. Message-ID: <20090605093725.GC23657@alberich.amd.com> References: <200906050038.n550c4Ja010907@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20090605023835.GA7933@cr0.nay.redhat.com> <20090604201733.746928c6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200906050339.n553d684048041@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20090604205103.bbfe9af2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200906050400.n5540Sx0052981@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20090604212018.b9e9f354.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200906050651.n556p7Vo094549@www262.sakura.ne.jp> <20090605000310.a5b8fa56.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090605000310.a5b8fa56.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jun 2009 09:38:12.0979 (UTC) FILETIME=[584EFC30:01C9E5C1] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1151 Lines: 44 On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:03:10AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:51:07 +0900 Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > >but I wonder why all those things are u64. They all hold virtual > > >addresses, don't they? The code doesn't test highmem. So shouldn't > > >these all be unsigned longs? > > memtest() in linux-2.6.29.4/arch/x86/mm/memtest.c is using "unsigned long". > > 2.6.30 changed to use "u64" by some reason. > > No reason, really. "consistency". Yes, it was done that way for consistency. See this thread http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/2/13/166 > It made the code slower, not measurable > larger slightly on 32-bit > and, err, not compile. Mea culpa. Overlooked the 64-bit division. Did test this with 4.[23].x compilers on 32-bit which didn't complain ... I assume you are going to send your do_div() fix upstream? Thanks! 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/