From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3693 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 22:36:53 +0200 Message-ID: <51E9A365.5090407@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> <51E99F3F.8000006@gentoo.org> <20130719202645.GB3249@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 1374266173 26926 80.91.229.3 (19 Jul 2013 20:36:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:36:13 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-3697-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Jul 19 22:36:15 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 1V0HPR-0003z7-PR for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 22:36:13 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 3138 invoked by uid 550); 19 Jul 2013 20:36:13 -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 3123 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2013 20:36:13 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130411 Thunderbird/17.0.5 In-Reply-To: <20130719202645.GB3249@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3693 Archived-At: On 07/19/2013 10:26 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > 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.. Exactly. > Indeed, this code takes about 1/100 of one percent of the time spent > on exec... :) I guess nobody should be against this change. lu