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 19:56:54 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k74gjmyh.fsf@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3FEFA115.90704@redhat.com> (Ulrich Drepper's message of "Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:35:49 -0800")
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> writes:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> I once tried to get Uli to take them out again, with
>> hard numbers to back me up, but he ignored me.
>
> I have absolutely no problem taking out the inlines once gcc is able to
> perform the same optimizations. Problem is that nobody spent the time
> so far to complete the task in gcc.
This is true - I believe Joseph Myers put a list of yet-to-be-done
optimizations on the GCC projects page ...
> As far as I know each function we still have has an advantage over
> the gcc code.
... 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.
zw
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-12-29 3:56 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 [this message]
2003-12-29 5:31 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-12-29 5:55 ` Zack Weinberg
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=87k74gjmyh.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.