On 05/05/2016 03:18 PM, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
>
> So this is why I tend to take a much more pragmatic viewpoint on
> things. Sure, it makes sense to pay attention to what the C standard
> writers are trying to do to us; but if we need to suppress certain
> optimizations to write sane kernel code -
On May 5, 2016 3:18:09 PM PDT, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
>On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:34:50PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
>>
>> I completely fail to see why tests or compiler versions should be
>> part of the discussion. The C standard says the behaviour in
>> certain cases is undefined, so a standard-co
On 05/05/2016 03:18 PM, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:34:50PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
>>
>> I completely fail to see why tests or compiler versions should be
>> part of the discussion. The C standard says the behaviour in
>> certain cases is undefined, so a standard-compliant
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:34:50PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
>
> I completely fail to see why tests or compiler versions should be
> part of the discussion. The C standard says the behaviour in
> certain cases is undefined, so a standard-compliant compiler
> can generate more-or-less any code the
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Instead of arguing over who's "sane" or "insane", can we come up with
> a agreed upon set of tests, and a set of compiler and compiler
> versions ...
I completely fail to see why tests or compiler versions should be
part of the discussion.
On 05/04/16 21:03, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
...
But instead of arguing over what works and doesn't, let's just create
the the test set and just try it on a wide range of compilers and
architectures, hmmm?
What are the requirements? Here's a s
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> ...
> But instead of arguing over what works and doesn't, let's just create
> the the test set and just try it on a wide range of compilers and
> architectures, hmmm?
What are the requirements? Here's a short list:
* No undefined behavior
Instead of arguing over who's "sane" or "insane", can we come up with
a agreed upon set of tests, and a set of compiler and compiler
versions for which these tests must achieve at least *working* code?
Bonus points if they achieve optimal code, but what's important is
that for a wide range of GCC v
>>> So you are actually saying outright that we should sacrifice *actual*
>>portability in favor of *theoretical* portability? What kind of
>>twilight zone did we just step into?!
>>
>>I'm not sure what you mean. It will be well defined on all platforms.
>>Clang may not recognize the pattern, whic
On May 4, 2016 7:54:12 PM PDT, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On May 4, 2016 6:35:44 PM PDT, Jeffrey Walton
>wrote:
>>>On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:52 PM, John Denker wrote:
On 05/04/2016 02:42 PM, I wrote:
> I find it very odd that th
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On May 4, 2016 6:35:44 PM PDT, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>>On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:52 PM, John Denker wrote:
>>> On 05/04/2016 02:42 PM, I wrote:
>>>
I find it very odd that the other seven functions were not
upgraded. I suggest the
On May 4, 2016 6:35:44 PM PDT, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:52 PM, John Denker wrote:
>> On 05/04/2016 02:42 PM, I wrote:
>>
>>> I find it very odd that the other seven functions were not
>>> upgraded. I suggest the attached fix-others.diff would make
>>> things more consistent
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:52 PM, John Denker wrote:
> On 05/04/2016 02:42 PM, I wrote:
>
>> I find it very odd that the other seven functions were not
>> upgraded. I suggest the attached fix-others.diff would make
>> things more consistent.
>
> Here's a replacement patch.
> ...
+1, commit it.
Its
On 05/04/2016 02:42 PM, I wrote:
> I find it very odd that the other seven functions were not
> upgraded. I suggest the attached fix-others.diff would make
> things more consistent.
Here's a replacement patch.
Same idea, less brain damage.
Sorry for the confusion.
commit ba83b16d8430ee6104aa1fee
14 matches
Mail list logo
