This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib 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] |
On Sep 4 12:56, Freddie Chopin wrote: > W dniu 2014-09-04 10:36, Corinna Vinschen pisze: > >How does that work? _mktm_r and _mklocaltm_r are still in the same source > >file, so if you get one, you also get the other. Where did you get your > >savings from? > > Hmm... My tests were done by compiling newlib sources as part of the > project, and I always use "-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections" for > compilation and "--gc-sections" for linking, so that unused functions are > removed even if they are in the same file. > > I guess that for this savings to work in "normal" scenario (newlib used as a > library) these would really need to be split, right? Right. > Initially I planned to split these functions to separate files, but I didn't > feel like modifying makefiles and there's the problem of sharing the arrays > (all of these functions use the array with number of days in the months). > > If such separation is required, I'd like to extend the change further, doing > deeper changes that would actually simplify stuff. First of all - in my > opinion - this _mktm_r() is actually not very useful (in the patched > version) - it's just gmtime_r() - I'd like to move all this code to > gmtime_r(). This new function which does time zone adjustments - > _mklocaltm_r() - is not really useful alone too - I'd like to move all that > code to localtime_r(), which would initially just call gmtime_r(), then do > the time zone adjustments on the result. The only local/internal function > that would be left would be __tzcalc_limits() which is used by 3 other > functions. Array mon_lengths[] from mktm_r.c would probably need to be put > in separate source file - it is used by _mktm_r() (gmtime_r()), > _mklocaltm_r() (localtime_r()) and __tzcalc_limits(). > > Does that sound OK? Would such change be acceptable? Yes, certainly. In this scenario, since _gmtime_r will be included as soon as localtime_r is used, the arrays would just go into the _gmtime_r source file as well. > >Since these are internal functions, I think the names are fine. Comments > >preceding _mktm_r and _mklocaltm_r would be nice. > > Right, I'll add proper comments in the next version if these would be > required (if the plan above would be acceptable, these local functions would > be gone, so no comments needed). Not these, but comments never hurt :) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer Red Hat
Attachment:
pgpkTd4Jb7jRV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |