From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9475
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] micro-optimize __procfdname
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 09:35:21 +0300 (MSK)
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.20.1603050930330.31711@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
References: <alpine.LNX.2.20.1602211426390.21162@monopod.intra.ispras.ru> <20160305052459.GD9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <alpine.LNX.2.20.1603050830540.31711@monopod.intra.ispras.ru> <20160305055605.GF9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <alpine.LNX.2.20.1603050906560.31711@monopod.intra.ispras.ru> <20160305062019.GH9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
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 1457159736 7060 80.91.229.3 (5 Mar 2016 06:35:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 06:35:36 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-9488-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Mar 05 07:35:36 2016
Return-path: <musl-return-9488-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-9488-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1ac5oN-00021h-O3
	for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 07:35:35 +0100
Original-Received: (qmail 30251 invoked by uid 550); 5 Mar 2016 06:35:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 30233 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2016 06:35:33 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20160305062019.GH9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LNX 67 2015-01-07)
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9475
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9475>

On Sat, 5 Mar 2016, Rich Felker wrote:
> I've thought about having libc.h define a macro simply named "hidden"
> for declaring things with hidden visibility; then files needing it
> could just include libc.h and do stuff like:
> 
> hidden char *__procfdname_impl(...);
> 
> This would be more a matter of de-uglification than abstraction. Does
> anyone particularly like or hate this idea?

I like it, with a further note that 'internal' would be more precise: a libc
does not hand off pointers to its internal functions to callers.

(well, 'internal' might be subtly broken in a toolchain due to zero real-world
use, but that's unlikely; it's probably handled exactly like 'hidden', and
does not help optimizers today)

Alexander