This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Monday 16 December 2013 11:12:09 Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 12/16/2013 09:40 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:32:12AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > >> Maybe, maybe not, but that would be a distinct patch *after* > >> this initial checkin to make the function distinct. > >> > >> I don't want to wrap the elements in a struct because that > >> breaks the optimizations used during inlining. > > > > Yeah, making a struct out of it is pointless. We could clean up the > > arguments later. > > It's not entirely pointless. A pointer to a structure makes the call > optimal when the ABI requires pass by stack, you need only push a > single register, and pop a single register before doing register+offset > loads. but you still need to create the struct on the stack unless gcc is super intelligent and lays out the local vars in such a way that it also matches the struct layout. but that seems pretty fragile to rely upon. > One question I had was: Why is the original function > __attribute_noinline__? the original commit that added this: commit 021723ab784461de9eac57398ea16a47d4ab9366 Author: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> Date: Sun Mar 7 05:26:02 2004 +0000 Update. and the actual diff doesn't indicate a compelling reason. have i mentioned i fsckin hate the glibc commit history ? current history sometimes isn't too much better. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |