Re: Any plans for "ifunc-ing" more glibc routines?

On 27 August 2013 04:16, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: Hi Michael, > There has been interest from LEG members to ensure that optimal library > routines are used on their platforms. My understanding is that the > "correct" way of doing this these days is to use ifuncs to select the > best implemen

Re: backport of memcpy ifunc work to 2.17

On 27 August 2013 04:25, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: > Hi, > > Apologies in advance for any chinese whispers effects that happen, but > colleagues at Canonical are attempting to backport this change: > > > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=ae65139d140ac85808c0666c363 > > to th

Re: backport of memcpy ifunc work to 2.17

Will Newton writes: > On 27 August 2013 04:25, Michael Hudson-Doyle > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Apologies in advance for any chinese whispers effects that happen, but >> colleagues at Canonical are attempting to backport this change: >> >> >> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=ae6

Re: Any plans for "ifunc-ing" more glibc routines?

Hi Will, Thanks for the reply. Will Newton writes: > On 27 August 2013 04:16, Michael Hudson-Doyle > wrote: > > Hi Michael, > >> There has been interest from LEG members to ensure that optimal library >> routines are used on their platforms. My understanding is that the >> "correct" way of d