On 2. Sep 2022, at 16:18, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 10:40:34AM +0200, Paul Heidekrüger wrote: >> On 31. Aug 2022, at 19:38, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Finally, a read event X and another memory access event Y are linked by a >>>>> control dependency if Y syntactically lies within an arm of an if >>>>> statement and X affects the evaluation of the if condition via a data or >>>>> address dependency. Similarly for switch statements. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> I like the second one. How about combining the last two sentences? >>> >>> ... via a data or address dependency (or similarly for a switch >>> statement). >> >> Yes, sounds good! >> >>> Now I suppose someone will pipe up and ask about the conditional >>> expressions in "for", "while" and "do" statements... :-) >> >> Happy to have obliged :-) >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20F4C097-24B4-416B-95EE-AC11F5952B44@xxxxxxxxx/ >> >> Do you think the text should explicitly address control dependencies in the >> context of loops as well? If yes, would it be a separate patch, or would it >> make sense to combine it with this one? > > Anything else should be a separate patch. > > For the time being, I'm happy not to worry about loops. In the end > we'll probably have to describe them as though they were unrolled, > with all the complications that entails. OK, sounds good! Since there aren't any other immediate objections, I'll go ahead an resubmit a v3 version of the patch with all the changes we discussed then. Many thanks, Paul
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
