From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>, Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>,
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com, linux-gcc@vger.kernel.org,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:55:33 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fzf4jhgq.fsf@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20031229053151.GA7231@nevyn.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:31:52 -0500")
> > ... however, that advantage is only theoretical. Experiments such as
> > Peter Zaitsev's just now, and mine several years ago, demonstrate that
> > the bits/string.h and bits/string2.h inlines make code worse, not better.
> > Therefore they should be removed.
>
> Funny, I conducted this experiment last week and found quite the
> opposite. Compiling the demangler and a smallish yacc parser
> with -D__NO_STRING_INLINES cost about 20% in runtime.
That's interesting. My testing was with much larger programs where
str* / mem* aren't the bottleneck anyway. I wonder if you would be
willing to take a look at the differences in the assembly language
and see where that 20% is coming from.
zw
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-12-29 5:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-12-25 0:20 i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions Denis Zaitsev
2003-12-25 0:38 ` Richard Henderson
2003-12-25 1:15 ` Denis Zaitsev
2003-12-25 1:21 ` Zack Weinberg
2003-12-25 1:45 ` Denis Zaitsev
2003-12-26 3:40 ` Zack Weinberg
2003-12-27 4:58 ` Richard Henderson
2003-12-27 10:24 ` Zack Weinberg
2003-12-27 11:35 ` Denis Zaitsev
2003-12-27 18:38 ` Zack Weinberg
2003-12-28 20:58 ` Denis Zaitsev
2003-12-29 2:22 ` Zack Weinberg
2003-12-29 2:44 ` Denis Zaitsev
2003-12-29 2:46 ` Zack Weinberg
2003-12-29 2:53 ` Denis Zaitsev
2003-12-29 3:35 ` Ulrich Drepper
2003-12-29 3:54 ` Andrew Pinski
2003-12-29 6:57 ` Jakub Jelinek
2003-12-29 3:56 ` Zack Weinberg
2003-12-29 5:31 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-12-29 5:55 ` Zack Weinberg [this message]
2003-12-29 18:37 ` Denis Zaitsev
2003-12-29 19:09 ` Zack Weinberg
2003-12-29 19:31 ` Denis Zaitsev
2003-12-29 19:37 ` Denis Zaitsev
2003-12-29 18:51 ` Denis Zaitsev
2003-12-29 19:15 ` Zack Weinberg
2003-12-27 10:52 ` Denis Zaitsev
[not found] ` <20031225060850.C7419@zzz.ward.six>
[not found] ` <20031225012711.GD13447@redhat.com>
2003-12-25 1:38 ` Denis Zaitsev
2003-12-25 1:53 ` Richard Henderson
2003-12-25 2:08 ` Denis Zaitsev
2003-12-25 0:39 ` Roland McGrath
2003-12-25 1:13 ` Denis Zaitsev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87fzf4jhgq.fsf@codesourcery.com \
--to=zack@codesourcery.com \
--cc=aj@suse.de \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=linux-gcc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rth@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.