Hi, On 12/1/21 22:39, Steve Wahl wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 04:26:39PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >> On Tue, 2021-11-30 at 13:34 -0600, Steve Wahl wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 05:03:20PM +0000, Colin Ian King wrote: >>>> Don't populate the const array dots on the stack >> [] >>> Examination of the disassembly shows that the compiler actually >>> eliminates the creation of the pointer "dots" on the stack and just >>> passes the address of the string constant to the printk function. >>> >>> So this change should not have any actual effect (I don't know where >>> you got the "shrinks object code" from), and in my humble opinion >>> makes the code less clear. >> >> Probably shrinks an allmodconfig where the symbols are referenced. >> It probably doesn't do anything to a defconfig. > > OK, I looked. Under allmodconfig, the new code is one byte smaller. > > Defconfig doesn't include CONFIG_X86_UV and this file doesn't get > compiled. > > Using defconfig plus CONFIG_X86_UV and prerequisites, the new code is > 24 bytes larger, probably because of alignment added. > > allmodconfig: > > text data bss dec hex filename > 30827 18358 1472 50657 c5e1 uv_nmi.o > 30828 18358 1472 50658 c5e2 uv_nmi.orig.o > > default config + CONFIG_X86_UV: > > text data bss dec hex filename > 9918 216 160 10294 2836 uv_nmi.o > 9894 216 160 10270 281e uv_nmi.orig.o > > So I still don't think this patch makes sense. I agree, so I've dropped this patch from the queue. Regards, Hans
