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 21:55:33 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fzf4jhgq.fsf@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20031229053151.GA7231@nevyn.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:31:52 -0500")
> > ... 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.
>
> Funny, I conducted this experiment last week and found quite the
> opposite. Compiling the demangler and a smallish yacc parser
> with -D__NO_STRING_INLINES cost about 20% in runtime.
That's interesting. My testing was with much larger programs where
str* / mem* aren't the bottleneck anyway. I wonder if you would be
willing to take a look at the differences in the assembly language
and see where that 20% is coming from.
zw
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-12-29 5:55 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
2003-12-29 5:31 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-12-29 5:55 ` Zack Weinberg [this message]
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=87fzf4jhgq.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).