On Freedag 09 September 2005 00:02, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Sep 8, 2005, at 4:48 PM, Dan Malek wrote: > > > > If we #define CPU_FTR_xxx as a 0 or all 1's for processors that have > > or don't have these features, will the compiler be smart enough to > > recognize an always true or false condition and remove the > > test (or code as appropriate)? > > The compiler is smart enough in this case since cpu_has_feature() is > an inline function.
I actually wrote a patch that solves the problem in a very generic way, see http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=1048 . I don't remember exactly if there were serious objections against the patch at that time, but it looks like a much cleaner solution to me than defining CPU_FTR_xxx to different values depending on the configuration. Arnd <><
