Re: [PATCH 08/39] don't use word-size specifiers

[Glauber Costa]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > I hate to say it, but I really think this is a step backwards in 
> > readability.  Consistency is a good thing, and with the suffixes in 
> > place we are consistent between instructions that refer to memory and 
> > instructions that refer to registers.  We also get one more check on 
> > things, where the assembler can tell the programmer he probably typoed.
> >
> > So I would prefer if we *didn't* go down this route, except for 
> > explicit unification, but that's not the case here (since the size is 
> > still explicit in the register names.)
>
> Okay, I didn't really explain what I meant very well here...
>
> Obviously, most of your patch series is all about unification, and that 
> is a Good Thing, and thank you for doing it.  What I was trying to say 
> was that it is not obvious from just reading the patchset what changes 
> are necessary for unification, and which one are a stylistic change.  If 
> *all* the changes are unification, please just say so and disregard this 
> remark, and I'll go ahead and apply your patchset.
>
>     -hpa
They're all about unification, but I split it for bisectability, as ingo 
many times requested (and it happened for me to agree completely with it
after a while ;-)).

So, exactly because not using size specifiers can introduce bugs here, I 
did it in a separate patch. But it all end at unification in the end.

Sorry if the intention was not explicit enough.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/