[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51E9A365.5090407@gentoo.org>
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.
