From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1923 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Feelings on macros vs inline in arch/$(ARCH)/syscall_arch.h ? Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:39:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20120912173909.GU27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120909182344.GA7623@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <8f7bd1eadcdc1b4d3c7e4e91a6ede511@exys.org> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1347471383 31785 80.91.229.3 (12 Sep 2012 17:36:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:36:23 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1924-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Sep 12 19:36:27 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TBqrR-0004lv-Sy for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:36:26 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 19795 invoked by uid 550); 12 Sep 2012 17:36:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 19785 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2012 17:36:21 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8f7bd1eadcdc1b4d3c7e4e91a6ede511@exys.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1923 Archived-At: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 06:21:15PM +0200, Arvid E. Picciani wrote: > On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 14:23:44 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > >Using inline functions is nicer from standpoint of clean [..] > > > >Using macros [..] could improve code generation especially on > >mips and i386/PIC. > > I use musl because i can read it. For anything performance relevant > we get customized bionic/gnulibc from vendors. That's an understandable position, but there are plenty of reasons to want to use musl when performance does matter, for example in systems where both performance and robustness matter. I don't claim everything is complete and bug-free in musl right now, but there are significant areas where musl has major reliability advantages over glibc already, especially in things related to threads and cancellation. > If i may, i suggest restricting performance optimizations at the > cost of readability to areas that actually have a measurable effect > for someone. I don't think it affects code readability at all since it's tucked away behind macros in the syscall headers already anyway. It more affects debugging. Anyway, I already solved the problem in a way that doesn't need uglification, so no need to worry. Thanks for the input though. Rich