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-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
