Re: 2.5 'what to expect'

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 01:51:53PM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:

 > There is no problem with the current version of this patch.  I rewrote 
 > the original patch to work around the bug in gcc.  The bug is that:
 > 
 > 	if (size < X) return kmem_cache_alloc(...);
 > 
 > would not cause the remaining if statements to be marked as dead code, but:
 > 
 > 	if (size < X) goto found;
 > 	...
 > 	found: return kmem_cache_alloc(...);
 > 
 > does optimize properly.

Ok, I'll drop that part from the next version of the doc.
It's not a critical thing that most users will notice.

		Dave