[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 22:19:11 +0200
From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Current status: important changes since 0.9.11
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
