From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Denis Zaitsev Subject: Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:44:47 +0500 Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <20031229074447.D6728@zzz.ward.six> References: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871xqol5wv.fsf@codesourcery.com>; from zack@codesourcery.com on Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 06:22:08PM -0800 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Zack Weinberg Cc: Richard Henderson , Andreas Jaeger , libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com, linux-gcc@vger.kernel.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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? > 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. > If you want to keep at them, though, and come up with patches, feel > free. Ok.