Re: Current status: important changes since 0.9.11

[Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:19:11PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 09:54 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 09:49:42PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> >> On 07/19/2013 08:53 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> >>> However I do also agree with you, and think simplicity/consistency
> >>> possibly override reason #1 above, and #2 could easily be handled if
> >>> some time is put into review and testing of the new code.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone else have opinions on the matter?
> >>
> >> According to what you said pathological compilers would be the problem here.
> > 
> > Which comment are you referring to?
> 
> I could be wrong and it wasn't from you. Anyway, I still consider
> supporting pathological compilers (that botch the usage of inline asm
> badly) the only reason to use full-asm.

One could always pre-generate the asm using GCC or another compiler
that can handle it. Actually even if we wanted to keep using per-arch
hand-written asm, generating the initial draft of the asm for a new
arch based on the C with inline asm would be a good idea..

> > This is code that runs once at startup and has no loops. There's
> > really no way for it to be slow. The only issues are size and
> > correctness.
> 
> We have many real life situations in which we spawn many processes in a
> loop. Still I doubt it would be an issue.

Indeed, this code takes about 1/100 of one percent of the time spent
on exec... :)

Rich