Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 08:42:16 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] micro-optimize __procfdname

On Sat, 5 Mar 2016, Rich Felker wrote:
> I really doubt this makes any major improvement, but it might help
> size a bit and it might be cleaner/more readable, so it's interesting.

Yeah, this precedes a syscall so speed-wise it doesn't matter; I just
noticed two div-10 loops and saw a chance to improve size.

> > +char *__procfdname_impl(char *, unsigned);
> > +
> > +#define procfdbufsize sizeof "/proc/self/fd/0123456789" + (3 * (sizeof(int)-4))
> What is the motivation behind changing the size expression to use the
> "012...9" part? It's nonobvious to me.

It just makes it obvious that there are 10 decimal places, which is how much a
32-bit unsigned int can occupy at most. I don't mind using any other style.

> > +#define procfdname(buf, fd) __procfdname_impl(buf + procfdbufsize - 1, fd)
> I suppose the idea of putting the offset to the end in a macro in the
> header rather than in the callee is both optimization and allowing the
> compiler to detect out-of-bounds pointer arithmetic?

Hm, the latter is rather theoretical given the uses, right? I just made it to
make it really obvious that __procfdname_impl fills in reverse; it might be a
very minor size optimization. I don't mind dropping this add adjusting buf
with '+= procfdbufsize - 1' in the callee.

> Here using the return value directly is nice but at some other call
> points might we need to introduce a pointer variable to store the
> pointer returned? I haven't checked yet.

Yes, I went through the call sites and they are all easy to adjust; I think a
couple needed a pointer, like you said.


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.