On Thu, 8 May 2003 17:10:42 +0200 Ingo Oeser <ingo.oeser@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
| On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:38:56PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
| > I've written a few of the stack reduction patches. Lots of ioctl functions
| > need work, so gcc handling it better would be good to have.
| >
| > I have mostly used kmalloc/kfree, but using automatic variables is certainly
| > cleaner to write (code). One of the patches that I did just made each ioctl
| > cmd call a separate function, and then each separate function was able to use
| > automatic variables on the stack instead of kmalloc/kfree. I prefer this
| > method when it's feasible (and until gcc can handle these cases).
|
| Wouldn't be a explicit union a better solution for the
| switch-statement-issue?
|
| That way you still can use stack, are using even less of it and
| have still all cases in place.
Sure, that's a good solution too. Better one is the gcc solution.
-- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:00:28 EST