Hi Peter,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:04:24PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > If not, do you want me to 'fix' this or just remove the comment?
>>
>> It's not broken, so nothing to fix.
>
> Its non obvious code, that's usually plenty reason to change it.
>
> Geert, you maintain this stuff, what say you? Is there still a good
> reason (like supporting ancient compilers that don't do "+d" for
> example) to keep the code as is?
I don't know when support for "+d" was introduced.
But given people regularly use old compilers, I'm not inclined to change it,
unless there's a very good reason.
BTW, what's the failure mode if an old compiler not supporting "+d"
encounters it?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
