On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 05:34:58PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > You're wrong. You wouldn't have to jump over them any more than you > have to jump over the "goto" statement. The goto is a conditional jump. You propose replacing it with a conditional jump past the error handling code predicated on the opposite condition. Where's the improvement? > > any instructions, and you end up with a kernel which has much more > > duplicated code and thus thrashes the cache more. It also makes the > > If that argument was taken to it's logical conclusion (and I did, in my > mind just now), no one should add any code the grows the kernel at all. Not without good reason. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Linus Torvalds
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Matti Aarnio
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rik van Riel
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Aaron Lehmann
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Aaron Lehmann
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Prev by Date: Re: Moderated forum for linux-kernel
- Next by Date: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
- Previous by thread: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
- Next by thread: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]