From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 128046 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2017 13:54:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 127674 invoked by uid 89); 18 Sep 2017 13:54:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com C3CF4C01416F Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=fweimer@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Use aligned stores in memset To: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho , Rajalakshmi Srinivasaraghavan Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <1503033107-20047-1-git-send-email-raji@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87mv5yhhdh.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: Florian Weimer Message-ID: <45dcb803-4632-0cc4-0f73-c3f9a8a442d9@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87mv5yhhdh.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-09/txt/msg00675.txt.bz2 On 09/13/2017 03:12 PM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote: >> So I think the implementation constraint on the mem* functions is wrong. >> It leads to a slower implementation of the mem* function for most of >> userspace which does not access device memory, and even for device >> memory, it is probably not what you want. > Makes sense. But as there is nothing in the standard allowing or prohibiting > the usage of mem* functions to access caching-inhibited memory, I thought it > would make sense to provide functions that are as generic as possible. But I have shown that you aren't doing that because of the GCC optimization which inlines the memset call. But I won't continue this conversation as I don't see it particularly useful to anyone. In the end, you are the architecture maintainers, and you should do what you think is best. Thanks, Florian