Re: linux-next: build failure

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> the fix is simple enough.
> 
> but the question is, wont it generate huge artificial stackframes with 
> CONFIG_MAXSMP and NR_CPUS=4096?

Quite the reverse.

The "address-of statement expression" is the one that is more likely to 
generate artificial stack-frames because of a temporary variable (of 
course, I wouldn't count on it, since statement expressions are gcc 
extensions, and as such the gcc people could make up any semantics they 
want to them, including just defining that a statement expression with 
an lvalue value is the same lvalue rather than any temporary). 

In contrast, "address-of lvalue" is _guaranteed_ to not do anything stupid 
like that, and gives just the address-of.

Oh, and I was wrong about the &*x losing the 'const'. It doesn't. So I 
think Stephen's patch is fine after all - if somebody tries to modify the 
end result through the pointer, it will give a big compiler warning.

			Linus