From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 777361F437 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:41:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750830AbdAXUlJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:41:09 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:44064 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750713AbdAXUlI (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:41:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 3483 invoked by uid 109); 24 Jan 2017 20:41:08 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:41:08 +0000 Received: (qmail 5029 invoked by uid 111); 24 Jan 2017 20:41:07 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:41:07 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:41:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:41:06 -0500 From: Jeff King To: =?utf-8?B?UmVuw6k=?= Scharfe Cc: Git List , Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] string-list: make string_list_sort() reentrant Message-ID: <20170124204105.2iqmincozuqbmqo2@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <67ac53cd-3fc0-8bd0-30f4-129281c3090f@web.de> <20170123235445.qsejumltutd2vrhd@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 07:00:07PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote: > Am 24.01.2017 um 00:54 schrieb Jeff King: > > The speed looks like a reasonable outcome. I'm torn on the qsort_r() > > demo patch. I don't think it looks too bad. OTOH, I don't think I would > > want to deal with the opposite-argument-order versions. > > The code itself may look OK, but it's not really necessary and the special > implementation for Linux makes increases maintenance costs. Can we save it > for later and first give the common implemention a chance to prove itself? Sure, I'm OK with leaving it out for now. > > Is there any interest in people adding the ISO qsort_s() to their libc > > implementations? It seems like it's been a fair number of years by now. > > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-12/msg00513.html is the last post > mentioning qsort_s on the glibc mailing list, but it didn't even make it > into https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Development_Todo/Master. > Not sure what's planned in BSD land, didn't find anything (but didn't look > too hard). So it sounds like "no, not really". I think that's OK. I was mostly curious if we could expect our custom implementation to age out over time. -Peff