public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 10:13:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-43052-4-xvF67DhEQN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-43052-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052

--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-04 10:11:03 UTC ---
H.J,
if glibc implementation beats gcc even for size of 4, I guess we could just
drop the pattern or enable at at -Os only.
Or are there easy cases we want to inline, like we do for memcpy?

Unlike memcpy, memcmp/strcmp is more difficult to handle because the amount of
memory it will process is harder to estimate. I guess still with known
alignment and/or small upper bound of object size, inline code would be a win.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-07-04 10:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <bug-43052-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-10-01 11:08 ` [Bug c/43052] " m.j.thayer at googlemail dot com
2010-11-10 21:17 ` [Bug target/43052] " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-10 21:36 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-11  2:24 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2010-11-11 10:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-11 11:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-13 18:10 ` justin.lebar+bug at gmail dot com
2011-06-13 18:14 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2011-06-13 18:19 ` justin.lebar+bug at gmail dot com
2011-07-04 10:13 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2011-07-04 10:50 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-04 14:42 ` justin.lebar+bug at gmail dot com
2011-07-04 15:03 ` justin.lebar+bug at gmail dot com
2011-07-05 11:10 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2011-08-24 10:58 ` [Bug target/43052] [4.7 Regression] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's, no longer expanded inline rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-24 14:36 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-24 14:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-10 11:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-21 17:19 ` fabio.ped at libero dot it
2012-03-22  9:18 ` [Bug target/43052] [4.7/4.8 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-14  8:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-20 10:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-13 20:14 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-11  8:00 ` [Bug target/43052] [4.7/4.8/4.9 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-12 13:49 ` [Bug target/43052] [4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-19 13:34 ` [Bug target/43052] [4.8/4.9/5 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-20 21:27 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-23  8:28 ` [Bug target/43052] [4.8/4.9/5/6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:04 ` [Bug target/43052] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-43052-4-xvF67DhEQN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).