Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions

["Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com>]

Denis Zaitsev <zzz@anda.ru> writes:

> On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 06:22:08PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> 
>> Meh.  I personally am convinced that the compiler can do a *much*
>> better job, and that trying to improve bits/string.h and
>> bits/string2.h is a waste of time; in fact, I've felt that they have
>> *always* caused the generated code to get worse, from the day they
>> were introduced.  I once tried to get Uli to take them out again,
>> with hard numbers to back me up, but he ignored me.
>
> Who is Uli - Ulrich Drepper?

Yes.

>> So I have very little interest in pursuing any of your suggestions.
>
> But I don't even try to have you to do so!  I'm just trying to
> understand what is/was happening.  I very don't like the content of
> bits/string[2].h too.  And I don't want to offend you.  I'm very
> sorry, if so.

No offense was taken, and I'm sorry I was so short.

I meant to indicate that I lack the time even to consider the rest of
your message at any length, so I cannot answer the questions you
raise.  Again I apologize.

zw