On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 at 16:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 04:56:27PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > "Names beginning with ‘str’, ‘mem’, or ‘wcs’ followed by a lowercase letter
> > are reserved for additional string and array functions. See String and Array
> > Utilities."
Hi Jakub,
On 12/12/22 17:09, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 04:56:27PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
"Names beginning with ‘str’, ‘mem’, or ‘wcs’ followed by a lowercase letter
are reserved for additional string and array functions. See String and Array
Utilities."
It is not t
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 04:56:27PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> "Names beginning with ‘str’, ‘mem’, or ‘wcs’ followed by a lowercase letter
> are reserved for additional string and array functions. See String and Array
> Utilities."
It is not that simple.
mem*, str* and wcs* are just potentia
Hi Jonathan and Jakub,
On 12/12/22 15:53, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 02:48:35PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 at 14:09, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
On 12/12/22 14:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I think that is the case, plus the question if one can use a non-sta
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 11:35 AM Wilco Dijkstra via Libc-alpha
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't believe there is a missing optimization here: compilers expand mempcpy
> by default into memcpy since that is the standard library call. That means
> even
> if your source code contains mempcpy, there will n
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 02:48:35PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 at 14:09, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > On 12/12/22 14:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > > I think that is the case, plus the question if one can use a non-standard
> > > function to implement a standard function (a
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 at 14:09, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On 12/12/22 14:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I think that is the case, plus the question if one can use a non-standard
> > function to implement a standard function (and if it would be triggered
> > by seeing an expected prototype for the non
Hi Jakub,
On 12/12/22 14:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 02:44:04PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
I don't see any problem with the code snippets you provided.
Well, then the optimization may be the other way around (although I question
why it is implemented that way
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 02:44:04PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> > I don't see any problem with the code snippets you provided.
>
> Well, then the optimization may be the other way around (although I question
> why it is implemented that way, and not the other way around, but I'm not a
Hi Martin,
On 12/12/22 14:37, Martin Liška wrote:
On 12/9/22 18:11, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
I expect the compiler to be knowledgeable enough to call whatever is fastest,
whatever it is, but be consistent in both cases. However, here are the results:
Hi.
Note the glibc implementati
On 12/9/22 18:11, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> I expect the compiler to be knowledgeable enough to call whatever is fastest,
> whatever it is, but be consistent in both cases. However, here are the
> results:
Hi.
Note the glibc implementation of mempcpy typically uses (calls) memcpy, thu
11 matches
Mail list logo
