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] |
On 31 Dec 2015 19:12, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 31 Dec 2015, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > architectures? I am not sure if passing one more argument to the > > syscalls really changes the performances. > > Well, it probably increases code size compared to using the direct > syscalls where available. i'm not entirely sure about this. at least for cancellable syscalls, i think the overhead of that logic is greater than argument shuffling. would be good to gather real data here though. > But some unification makes sense in at least a > subset of cases: those where the generic/ code is actually needed on some > other architectures as well. E.g. umount (bug 16552). those arches can still directly #include files ... -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |