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]

Re: [PATCH] Revert commit 05a910f7


On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com> wrote:
> H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Yes, string2.h is quite huge today, but it won't be when I'm finished with the cleanup.
>
>

Wouldn't it be easier to review your change if you break it down into
one inline function cleanup in one patch?

-- 
H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]