On 07/02/2011 01:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
static void update_rq_clock_task(struct rq *rq, s64 delta)
{
s64 irq_delta = 0, steal = 0;
rq->clock_task += delta;
if ((irq_delta + steal)&& sched_feat(NONTASK_POWER))
sched_rt_avg_update(rq, irq_delta + steal);
}
And we want it to emit the equivalent of:
static void update_rq_clock_task(struct rq *rq, s64 delta)
{
rq->clock_task += delta;
}
Now Glauber is properly paranoid and doesn't trust his compiler (this is
very hot code in the kernel so any extra code emitted here is sad) and
chose the heavy handed CPP solution.
Now without checking a all relevant gcc versions on all relevant
architectures (see you in a few weeks etc..) can we actually rely on gcc
doing such relatively simple things correct, or should we stick with CPP
just to make sure?
I'm pretty sure any relevant version of gcc will do the right optimizations.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
