[[PATCH RFC 2] 02/63] Y2038: add function __difftime64
Paul Eggert
eggert@cs.ucla.edu
Tue May 22 21:15:00 GMT 2018
On 05/22/2018 01:58 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> But here we're talking about optimizing*away* code which the
> compiler finds it won't use at all any more.
That's fine. GCC does this sort of thing all the time. It is a normal
thing to write portable code that contains portions executed only on
some platforms.
The proposed hand-optimization does not improve efficiency at all, so
there is no good reason to insist on doing it by hand. Maintaining two
copies of the source code would cause more maintenance work in the long
run, and would increase the probability of bugs like the bug we already
found in the "optimized" version. Although whether one should do an
optimization is often a judgment call that could go either way, this
particular case is a slam-dunk: we should let GCC do the optimization,
and we should keep the overall source code simpler rather than maintain
two copies of it, one "optimized" (but no faster).
As I recall, there were other unnecessary duplications in the proposed
set of patches, so this is not just an issue of difftime.
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list