This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Use generic lowlevellock-futex.h in x86_64 lowlevellock.h.
- From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:08:36 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use generic lowlevellock-futex.h in x86_64 lowlevellock.h.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1418858157 dot 20194 dot 30 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <20141217233744 dot 01E612C3ABF at topped-with-meat dot com> <1418860468 dot 1025 dot 10 dot camel at triegel dot csb>
> I tested on x86_64 and there are no regressions. If I hadn't done any
> testing on the only arch this affects, I would have mentioned this in
> the description of the patch (or not submitted the patch if I actually
> encountered regressions).
It's usual form to say in the original patch posting what testing you did.
Just "Tested x86_64-linux-gnu" communicates what you've just said.
> I did not inspect the generated code because on x86_64, the futex calls
> used from C code are on the slow paths. Looking now at pthread_once.o,
> the generated code seems reasonable -- although I don't claim to have
> checked whether it's optimal.
It's not that it's optimal that should be checked, but that it's not worse
than the status quo ante. But given the caveat about how microoptimization
should not actually matter here, the change is fine with me even without
you having done that.