[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120912173909.GU27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:39:09 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Feelings on macros vs inline in
arch/$(ARCH)/syscall_arch.h ?
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 06:21:15PM +0200, Arvid E. Picciani wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 14:23:44 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
>
> >Using inline functions is nicer from standpoint of clean [..]
> >
> >Using macros [..] could improve code generation especially on
> >mips and i386/PIC.
>
> I use musl because i can read it. For anything performance relevant
> we get customized bionic/gnulibc from vendors.
That's an understandable position, but there are plenty of reasons to
want to use musl when performance does matter, for example in systems
where both performance and robustness matter. I don't claim everything
is complete and bug-free in musl right now, but there are significant
areas where musl has major reliability advantages over glibc already,
especially in things related to threads and cancellation.
> If i may, i suggest restricting performance optimizations at the
> cost of readability to areas that actually have a measurable effect
> for someone.
I don't think it affects code readability at all since it's tucked
away behind macros in the syscall headers already anyway. It more
affects debugging.
Anyway, I already solved the problem in a way that doesn't need
uglification, so no need to worry. Thanks for the input though.
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.
