From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3689 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luca Barbato Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Current status: important changes since 0.9.11 Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 21:49:42 +0200 Message-ID: <51E99856.3030504@gentoo.org> References: <20130719161234.GA8335@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20130719203923.1a411332@ralda.gmx.de> <20130719185301.GJ12469@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1374263341 30385 80.91.229.3 (19 Jul 2013 19:49:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:49:01 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-3693-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Jul 19 21:49:03 2013 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 1V0Gfn-0003gm-4c for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 21:49:03 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 28530 invoked by uid 550); 19 Jul 2013 19:49:01 -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 28518 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2013 19:49:01 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130411 Thunderbird/17.0.5 In-Reply-To: <20130719185301.GJ12469@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3689 Archived-At: 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. Not sure which would be the performance impact of the change on good compilers though. The safest route is to keep around the assembly that works or benchmark and replace if the result doesn't change much. lu