From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 106305 invoked by alias); 13 May 2016 20:41:07 -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 106285 invoked by uid 89); 13 May 2016 20:41:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 13 May 2016 20:40:56 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1b1JtF-0007aP-Ub from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Fri, 13 May 2016 13:40:54 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.106) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 13 May 2016 21:40:52 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b1JtC-0002sx-SE; Fri, 13 May 2016 20:40:50 +0000 Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 20:41:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Bernd Schmidt CC: Richard Biener , GCC Patches , Nick Clifton Subject: Re: Thoughts on memcmp expansion (PR43052) In-Reply-To: <5735DDDB.1090808@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <56992541.3090402@redhat.com> <5722581B.5050402@redhat.com> <57274ECF.3060909@redhat.com> <5734B9DF.9000505@redhat.com> <5735D120.4070808@redhat.com> <5735D2F1.20501@redhat.com> <5735DDDB.1090808@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg01050.txt.bz2 On Fri, 13 May 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > Thanks. So, this would seem to suggest that BITS_PER_UNIT in memcmp/memcpy > expansion is more accurate than a plain 8, although pedantically we might want > to use CHAR_TYPE_SIZE? Should I adjust my patch to use the latter or leave > these parts as-is? I'd say use CHAR_TYPE_SIZE. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com