This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Revert commit 05a910f7
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco dot Dijkstra at arm dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, nd <nd at arm dot com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 05:48:22 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert commit 05a910f7
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAMe9rOrYywzUwdCmsG06ppzdKC9Gntwhia_kMp25ETTx+weDpQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <DB3PR08MB00896A6C32878F6DF33E813A83B10 at DB3PR08MB0089 dot eurprd08 dot prod dot outlook dot com> <CAMe9rOpSpACKe5FR4vUR+goF18veta_rSU7imhhkLpKghsQJ5A at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqEgHtU3xXE3xYDcms+xxoXWGuWdbE9neu3bBHa9DoiFA at mail dot gmail dot com> <DB3PR08MB0089CC3F4BE97CE37FEC4B7583B20 at DB3PR08MB0089 dot eurprd08 dot prod dot outlook dot com> <CAMe9rOpvgxwFYzPEtkqNCksV+reETzxcpmKfG3fdsuPrhHF6eQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <DB3PR08MB0089D9B92335C7A0D3A5FEAF83B20 at DB3PR08MB0089 dot eurprd08 dot prod dot outlook dot com>
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com> wrote:
>
> H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why do we want to remove <bits/string2.h>? Shouldn't inline mempcpy
>> be there?
>
> Currently bits/string2.h is a huge mess without being beneficial (quite a few of
> the inlines are not useful or even detrimental to performance).
> Once bits/string2.h is cleaned up and included unconditionally, what's the
> difference between placing any remaining useful inlines in string2.h or string.h?
Smaller header files? Why did we have string2.h to begin with?
--
H.J.