From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 73386 invoked by alias); 13 May 2016 13:13:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 72518 invoked by uid 89); 13 May 2016 13:13:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=bschmidt@redhat.com, bschmidtredhatcom X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 13 May 2016 13:13:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C964263172; Fri, 13 May 2016 13:13:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-7-214.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.7.214]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u4DDDLJ2029265; Fri, 13 May 2016 09:13:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Thoughts on memcmp expansion (PR43052) To: Richard Biener References: <56992541.3090402@redhat.com> <5722581B.5050402@redhat.com> <57274ECF.3060909@redhat.com> <5734B9DF.9000505@redhat.com> <5735D120.4070808@redhat.com> Cc: GCC Patches , Nick Clifton , Joseph Myers From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: <5735D2F1.20501@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 13:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg00983.txt.bz2 On 05/13/2016 03:07 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> Huh? Can you elaborate? > > When you have a builtin taking a size in bytes then a byte is 8 bits, > not BITS_PER_UNIT bits. That makes no sense to me. I think the definition of a byte depends on the machine (hence the term "octet" was coined to be unambiguous). Also, such a definition would seem to imply that machines with 10-bit bytes cannot implement memcpy or memcmp. Joseph, can you clarify the standard's meaning here? Bernd