Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:20:49 +0100 (CET) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] string.h speedup, cld-2.3.30-C1 |
| |
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Artur Skawina wrote:
> [the above might not have been as clear as it could have been] > What you initially suggested was "to let users override GCC's internal > memcpy/etc. functions" and i had assumed what you actually wanted was > replacing not memcpy() itself, but the lower level code generated by > the compiler. That was what the context suggested and that is how i > interpret the below comment too -- and this is what i can't see a clean > solution for.
i ment replacing memcpy itself, for the time being, because that one is showing the problem. I mean (assuming an ideal compiler), i cannot see any big conceptual difference - both a builtin and an external (inline) function should result in similar RTL code emitted, no? Is there something more subtle about built mempcy? Also i might be wrong about structure copies, structure copies are using the builtin memcpy, right?
i did not really mean replacing some other builtin functions, obviously __builtin_constant and others must have internal (version dependent GCC data-structure) knowledge. The 'etc.' part ment 'memset()' and the other memory-manipulation functions. Sorry if my sentence was confusing.
-- mingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |