On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 06:21, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think this patch can have more discussion. > > If possible, I would rather no increase the instruction struct size. > It is a very common structure, which responsible for a large part > of the byte code memory usage. There is only one person > (David) can benefit from it so far. > > I think what David need is just distinction of int vs pointer. > We can do that by save an array of the known basic types. > Including the abstract pointer type. Then we just use an > index to the array rather than use the raw size directly. > Are you sre this is worth the effort (and code complication)? Struct instruction is not exactly a tiny one, and a pointer would bloat it by about 10%. On the other hand, I don't really unerstand why the type information is associated with the instructions, and not with the pseudos. Am I missing something? > That have the extra benefit of, different architecture can share > the same byte code. Didn't understand this comment. > Chris -- 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
