[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:51:58 +0400 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] add the thrd_xxxxxx functions
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> > > @@ -234,7 +253,10 @@ static int __pthread_create(pthread_t *restrict res, const pthread_attr_t *restr
> > > new->canary = self->canary;
> > >
> > > a_inc(&libc.threads_minus_1);
> > > - ret = __clone(start, stack, flags, new, &new->tid, TP_ADJ(new), &new->tid);
> > > + if (c11)
> > > + ret = __clone(start_c11, stack, flags, new, &new->tid, TP_ADJ(new), &new->tid);
> > > + else
> > > + ret = __clone(start, stack, flags, new, &new->tid, TP_ADJ(new), &new->tid);
> >
> > Couldn't this be "c11 ? start_c11 : start" to avoid duplicating the
> > rest of the call?
>
> I think that the ternary expression together with the other
> parenthesized paramenter and the length of the line would make the
> line barely readable.
>
> This are some of the pivots lines of the implementation, I'd rather
> have them stick out.
>
> Also the assembler that is produced should be identical.
It probably won't be with GCC. Try:
echo 'int g(int); int f(int y){if (y) return g(0); else return g(1);}' |
gcc -xc - -S -o- -O
And try varying optimization levels. With gcc-4.8 on x86-64 I get two calls
except with -Os, and even with -Os it's worse than with a ternary operator.
Alexander
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.
