From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:25:40 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: "Mark A. Greer" Cc: Jim Thompson , Sergiy Kovtun , linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: 64Mbytes on Sandpoint-X3B Message-ID: <20020531182540.GY32412@opus.bloom.county> References: <20020531060244.15732.qmail@web11204.mail.yahoo.com> <20020531145120.GI32412@opus.bloom.county> <15607.36947.107412.219533@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20020531151130.GN32412@opus.bloom.county> <15607.38056.877088.211807@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20020531152615.GO32412@opus.bloom.county> <3CF7B768.D2C20A4B@mvista.com> <20020531181349.GX32412@opus.bloom.county> <3CF7BE91.825324EE@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3CF7BE91.825324EE@mvista.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 02:18:57PM -0400, Mark A. Greer wrote: > Tom Rini wrote: > > > > I dunno guys, I think the compiler usually optimizes that all away and you > > > should never see "openfirmware". I don't recall ever seeing it print out. I > > > think something fishy is going on... > > > > Er, first, it becomes: > > if (1) > > So we always 'do it'. However, all of the __openfirmware code is now > > almost never compiled in on !CONFIG_ALL_PPC, so we never see it being > > free'd. > > That was my point. Er, but it didn't make any sense. :) The __openfirmware code does not get optimized away, iirc. Unless we lose global functions which don't have any callers.. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/