From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Zack Weinberg" Subject: Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:56:54 -0800 Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Message-ID: <87k74gjmyh.fsf@codesourcery.com> References: <20031225052045.A18774@zzz.ward.six> <20031225003819.GC13447@redhat.com> <20031225061524.E7419@zzz.ward.six> <87isk5lmk3.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20031225064518.F7419@zzz.ward.six> <87d6acjlfp.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <20031227045815.GA14291@redhat.com> <87fzf6mubo.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <20031227163540.B6728@zzz.ward.six> <87brpum7gm.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <20031229015820.C6728@zzz.ward.six> <871xqol5wv.fsf@codesourcery.com> <3FEFA115.90704@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: In-Reply-To: <3FEFA115.90704@redhat.com> (Ulrich Drepper's message of "Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:35:49 -0800") List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: Richard Henderson , Andreas Jaeger , libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com, linux-gcc@vger.kernel.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Ulrich Drepper 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