From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Received: from albireo.enyo.de (albireo.enyo.de [37.24.231.21])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 051193858409
 for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 31 Dec 2021 22:05:18 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 051193858409
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deneb.enyo.de
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=deneb.enyo.de
Received: from [172.17.203.2] (port=55915 helo=deneb.enyo.de)
 by albireo.enyo.de ([172.17.140.2]) with esmtps
 (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256)
 id 1n3Q1S-000SlE-TK; Fri, 31 Dec 2021 22:05:14 +0000
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.94.2)
 (envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>)
 id 1n3Q1S-000F83-IV; Fri, 31 Dec 2021 23:05:14 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,  "H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha"
 <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,  GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,  Arjan
 van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Optimize memset for zeroing
References: <20211231182010.107040-1-hjl.tools@gmail.com>
 <CAFUsyfJ5wHJHkfcL84j+GLCX-Dba4qVt_RuCpu=aLy7-_YbHLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMe9rOq0cW28i-_DeLfdxD3HDRTXy17ie9ZC1NxsqfRLjBz4Yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87h7aofqtx.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <CAMe9rOoY+=HqgDWAn7QZFTeLQZjJnr4AAFmmZ+zPqt+Hdj7MwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <878rw0fpxm.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <CAFUsyfJ4KgiFjP1Fpt_Dg2spkDiiwcO7+98yS0Gms9oxRmS05w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 23:05:14 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAFUsyfJ4KgiFjP1Fpt_Dg2spkDiiwcO7+98yS0Gms9oxRmS05w@mail.gmail.com>
 (Noah Goldstein's message of "Fri, 31 Dec 2021 15:15:57 -0600")
Message-ID: <874k6ofn1h.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc mailing list <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc>,
 <mailto:gcc-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc>,
 <mailto:gcc-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 22:05:19 -0000

* Noah Goldstein:

>> >> bzero does not have the interface ambiguity that bcmp has.  So the
>> >> only reason for not using it would be namespace cleanliness.
>> >
>> > bzero isn't a standard C function and it isn't optimized like memset
>> > in glibc.
>
> It could be an issue if the "optimization" was made and then the
> binary was run with an older version of GCC that was still using
> the aliasing bzero. Would end up being a deoptimization then.

That's a fair point.