From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3691 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 22:19:11 +0200 Message-ID: <51E99F3F.8000006@gentoo.org> References: <20130719161234.GA8335@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20130719203923.1a411332@ralda.gmx.de> <20130719185301.GJ12469@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <51E99856.3030504@gentoo.org> <20130719195400.GA3249@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 1374265119 16940 80.91.229.3 (19 Jul 2013 20:18:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:18:39 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-3695-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Jul 19 22:18:39 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 1V0H8K-0003Bm-Ai for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 22:18:32 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 21928 invoked by uid 550); 19 Jul 2013 20:18:31 -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 21920 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2013 20:18:31 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130411 Thunderbird/17.0.5 In-Reply-To: <20130719195400.GA3249@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3691 Archived-At: 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. > 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. lu