This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
From: Ondřej Bílka <neleai@seznam.cz> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:40:21 +0100 > This makes all mempcpy call to call memcpy instead. > > There are two reasons, one is that it will simplify maintainance. > Second is that posible performance gains are saving one addition and > perhaps spilling one register. Problem is that implementation is quite > big - 1105 bytes on x64. Probably cost of instruction/branch cache > misses outweigth speedup we gained. > > I will move unused inline functions later. The overhead of mempcpy vs. memcpy on sparc is exactly 2 instructions and 1 extra cycle. I think you are making an extremely cpu specific decision on how this macro behaves.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |