On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:28:38AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ So Al, when you said that
>
> (a-b)
>
> is equivalent to
>
> ((char *)a-(char *)b)/4
>
> for a "int *" a and b, you're right in the sense that the *result* is
> the same, but the code generation likely isn't. The "a-b" thing can (and
Sure. And yes, I very much do prefer code that uses C as it ought to be
used and doesn't play games with casts from hell, etc. For a lot of reasons,
both correctness- and efficiency-related.
We _do_ have such turds. In spades. And such places are potential timebombs,
since well-intentioned idiotic patch ("I've read in lecture notes that sizeof
is better than explicit constant, so replacement surely can only improve the
things and the best part is, I don't need to understand what I'm doing")
turns an ugly FPOS into equally ugly FPOS that silently doesn't work ;-/
[sorry about the rant, I'm about 3/4 through the drivers/net colonoscopy,
with >300Kb of patches and a pile of assorted bugs so far - and then there's
drivers/scsi to deal with. Endianness stuff, mostly...]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
