On Thursday 10 July 2003 11:48, William Lee Irwin III wrote:

It's not the 64B...
I care about the unneeded but executed code!
But I'm a hopeless perfectionist caring about such nits...

On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 11:59:49AM +0200, Thomas Schlichter wrote:

And I don't know why everybody hates my patches... ;-(

It's not that anyone hates them, it's that
pass 1: the semantics (0 == empty cpu set) needed preserving
pass 2: remove code instead of changing redundant stuff

NFI YTF gcc doesn't optimize out the whole shebang.

At any rate, if we're pounding APM BIOS calls or apm_power_off()
like wild monkeys there's something far more disturbing going wrong
than 64B of code gcc couldn't optimize (it's probably due to some
jump target being aligned to death or some such nonsense).


-- wli
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>