Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 22:36:53 +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 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
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.