Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:51:53 -0400 | From | Brian Gerst <> | Subject | Re: 2.5 'what to expect' |
| |
Steven Cole wrote: > On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 09:11, Larry McVoy wrote: > >>On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:00:33PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: >> >>>On Gwe, 2003-07-11 at 15:46, Tomas Szepe wrote: >>> >>>>>>- gcc 3.2.2-5 as shipped by Red Hat generates incorrect code in the >>>>>> kmalloc optimisation introduced in 2.5.71 >>>>>> See http://linus.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/cset@1.1410 >>>>> >>>>>This URL appears wrong! >>>> >>>>Nahh, that's just the same old annoying bkbits bug. Try with lynx... >>> >>>I did - it references a changeset unrelayed to kmalloc >> >>I know, sorry. The version numbers in BK are not stable, they can't be. >>You have to use the underlying internal version number. If someone who >>knows can show me the output of >> >> bk changes -r<correct rev> >> >>for that changeset I will figure out a way to have a URL that doesn't change >>and send it to Dave for that doc as well as post it there. > > > This looks like the right one as currently numbered. > > http://linus.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/cset@1.1215.127.10 > > Steven
There is no problem with the current version of this patch. I rewrote the original patch to work around the bug in gcc. The bug is that:
if (size < X) return kmem_cache_alloc(...);
would not cause the remaining if statements to be marked as dead code, but:
if (size < X) goto found; ... found: return kmem_cache_alloc(...);
does optimize properly.
-- Brian Gerst
- 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/
| |