This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com 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] |
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> writes: > H. J. Lu wrote: > >> I tested it on all available Pentium 4/M processors. > > And because of your tests with P4s you replace the code for generic > i386? Not very logical, is it? > > Furthermore, the test case code is not a realistic benchmark. For this > you need to know the usual string sizes which happen on a normal system. > Do you have this data? Well, I have some code which does measurements > of the use of all string functions. And guess what the outcome is? > memcmp in the libc is not used at all during a normal system start and > shutdown. I've even started OO.o. > > There are probably places where the calls are handled by gcc and perhaps > there are a few uses inside libc, but that's neglectable and where it is > used the strings are very short. This means you are optimizing > something which needs no optimizing. You are increasing the size of > basically dead code. > > > I've uploaded the data of the string function usage measurements. > > http://people.redhat.com/drepper/string-stat What test program did you use? Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |