From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: Hexagon-setup: Combine four seq_printf() calls into one call in show_cpuinfo() Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 19:33:30 +0200 Message-ID: <48d54097-6be3-d39d-2af9-d4ad90c3c417@users.sourceforge.net> References: <20161021154624.maiwbgjmzlzhin2l@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20161021154624.maiwbgjmzlzhin2l@thunk.org> Sender: kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Theodore Ts'o , linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org Cc: Julia Lawall , Richard Kuo , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org >> Is it really so difficult to interpret the suggested construction >> of a single (and relatively small) format string? > > It's not so difficult, so much as it makes things worse. It's easier > the way it originally was. Thanks for your view on this refactoring approach. > It might be interesting to see if the compiler could be taught > to collapse the function calls, How does this wish fit to your previous rejection? > but (a) this isn't performance critical, This can be. > and (b) the number of bytes saved is really tiny. I imagine that the corresponding code and data size reduction could be occasionally useful, couldn't it? > But at least if the compiler was doing the work, it would at least deal with > it everywhere. I would find such an optimisation possibility also nice. Can it become acceptable to achieve a similar effect by the application of scripts for the semantic patch language in the meantime? Regards, Markus