Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755168AbZFERZI (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:25:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751478AbZFERY6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:24:58 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:39293 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751079AbZFERY5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:24:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:24:40 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Andreas Herrmann 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: <20090605102440.58a6e443.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <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> <20090605093725.GC23657@alberich.amd.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1355 Lines: 43 On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:37:25 +0200 Andreas Herrmann wrote: > 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? > I deleted it, for it is lame. A better fix is to use the correct types. -- 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/