Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions

Denis Zaitsev <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 10:38:49AM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> Denis Zaitsev <[email protected]> writes:
>> 
>> >> so, first off, I don't think this kind of optimization is libc's
>> >> business; we have the tools to do a better job over here in the
>> >> compiler.
>> >
>> > Should the compiler implement all the string functions?
>> 
>> That is the trend.  The compiler can make a better decision about
>> whether memcpy (for example) should be inlined at all, if it knows
>> the properties.
>
> Yes, but even if it can, it is rather a kinda political question -
> should it do so, or this must be defined by the programmer.  I
> personally like the latter approach, but who knows...

Meh.  I personally am convinced that the compiler can do a *much*
better job, and that trying to improve bits/string.h and
bits/string2.h is a waste of time; in fact, I've felt that they have
*always* caused the generated code to get worse, from the day they
were introduced.  I once tried to get Uli to take them out again, with
hard numbers to back me up, but he ignored me.

So I have very little interest in pursuing any of your suggestions.
If you want to keep at them, though, and come up with patches, feel
free.

zw