Re: [PATCH] gcc-3.0 warnings

[J . A . Magallon]

On 03.23 Alan Cox wrote:
> >  	page_cache_release(page);
> > -out:
> 
> out:;
> 

Yes, a null sentence can shut up the compiler. But what is the purpose of
a jump to the end instead of a return ? Some optimization ?

> does that trick
> 
> > -	default:
> > +	default:;
>

Same, I have not tested if gcc-3 will complain about a switch that not
covers all values (ie, no default:). But the logic thing would be to kill
the default: completely. Mmmm, and older compilers will eat it with no
default: ?

> 
> The aic7xxx change looks right too. Someone with the hardware handy needs to
> check that one though.
>

It work on my 7880.

> As to the asm - I'll apply it to -ac if you can verify the asm after changes
> goes happily through the older gcc/binutils (should do) and send me a nice
> clean diff of just those changes
> 

Is there a non-written standard for coding that asm's ?
For example:
"      adcl 12(%1), %0\n"
"1:    adcl 16(%1), %0\n"
"      lea 4(%1), %1\n"

or

"adcl 12(%1), %0\n\t"
"1:  adcl 16(%1), %0\n\t"
"lea 4(%1), %1\n\t"

-- 
J.A. Magallon                                          #  Let the source
mailto:[e-mail]                              #  be with you, Luke... 

Linux werewolf 2.4.2-ac21 #5 SMP Thu Mar 22 23:47:26 CET 2001 i686