From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
Cc: "Martin Liška" <mliska@suse.cz>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "GNU C Library" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: Missing optimization: mempcpy(3) vs memcpy(3)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 14:56:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y5czFAB8PFMCHxWM@tucnak> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eccdad35-d7c2-0638-d946-8e94654e0e00@gmail.com>
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 02:44:04PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> > I don't see any problem with the code snippets you provided.
>
> Well, then the optimization may be the other way around (although I question
> why it is implemented that way, and not the other way around, but I'm not a
> hardware or libc guy, so there may be reasons).
>
> If calling memcpy(3) is better, then the code calling mempcpy(3) could be
> expanded inline to call it (but I doubt it).
>
> If calling mempcpy(3) is better, then the hand-made pattern resembling
> mempcpy(3) should probably be merged as a call to mempcpy(3).
>
> But acting different on equivalent calls to both of them seems inconsistent
> to me, unless you trust the programmer to know better how to optimize, that
> is...
I think that is the case, plus the question if one can use a non-standard
function to implement a standard function (and if it would be triggered
by seeing an expected prototype for the non-standard function).
Otherwise, whether mempcpy in libc is implemented as memcpy + tweak return
value or has its own implementation is something that is heavily dependent
on the target and changes over time, so hardcoding that in gcc is
problematic. For -Os mempcpy call might be very well smaller even if the
library side is then slower.
Jakub
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-12 13:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-09 17:11 Alejandro Colomar
2022-12-12 13:37 ` Martin Liška
2022-12-12 13:44 ` Alejandro Colomar
2022-12-12 13:56 ` Jakub Jelinek [this message]
2022-12-12 14:05 ` Alejandro Colomar
2022-12-12 14:48 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-12-12 14:53 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-12-12 15:56 ` Alejandro Colomar
2022-12-12 16:09 ` Jakub Jelinek
2022-12-12 17:15 ` Alejandro Colomar
2022-12-12 17:42 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-12-12 14:34 Wilco Dijkstra
2022-12-12 14:57 ` Cristian Rodríguez
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=Y5czFAB8PFMCHxWM@tucnak \
--to=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=alx.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=mliska@suse.cz \
/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).