From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1744 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2011 18:14:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 1734 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jun 2011 18:14:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:14:31 +0000 From: "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hjl.tools at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:14:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01130.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 H.J. Lu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|Serge.Pavlov.at.gnu at |sergos.gnu at gmail dot com |gmail dot com | --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2011-06-13 18:14:26 UTC --- The basic string/memory functions in glibc 2.13 or above are super faster in all cases. GCC can't beat glibc if function call overhead is low.