Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:26:46 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Current status: important changes since 0.9.11 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.. > > 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. Indeed, this code takes about 1/100 of one percent of the time spent on exec... :) Rich
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.