Header inlines.
Joseph Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
Thu May 14 16:47:00 GMT 2015
On Thu, 14 May 2015, Ondøej BĂlka wrote:
> > Did the discussion involving
> > <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2013-01/msg00157.html> and
> > <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2013-01/msg00270.html> reach any
> > wiki-documented consensus regarding what compiler versions it's worth
> > having any optimizations for in the headers?
> >
> These aren't too related to this problem, there is barely any discussion
> about performance, its mostly about support.
It seems directly related.
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2013-01/msg00270.html> has two
paragraphs about optimizations in headers and not regressing such support
"just in the name of generic simplification".
> I would use rule that if user doesn't care about performance by using
> obsolete gcc that generates slower code why should we care?
Well, maybe we should say that the optimizations for GCC < 4.1 (say)
aren't significant enough to be worth the complexity of keeping (in
headers not shared with gnulib) - though you still need to export all the
old ABIs exported by string-inlines.c (they could be conditioned
SHLIB_COMPAT so new architectures don't get them, however). But such a
change needs consensus.
> Also as I said before removing many of these would improve performance
> as they are obsolete and libcall is faster.
These are generally about optimizing cases of e.g. constant arguments for
old compilers that didn't have such optimizations themselves.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list