This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.1.1] Re: GCC performance regression - its memset!
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Cc: Michel LESPINASSE <walken at zoy dot org>, Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "mark at codesourcery dot org" <mark at codesourcery dot org>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 11:18:30 -0700
- Subject: Re: [3.1.1] Re: GCC performance regression - its memset!
- References: <20020520144839.GY29339@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
--On Monday, May 20, 2002 04:48:39 PM +0200 Jan Hubicka <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Hmm, an pasto.
>> In memcpy case I got it right, while in memset I broke it. I am
>> attaching patch I am testing currently. OK for mainline/branch assuming
>> it passes?
>> COncerning the inlining, gcc inlines all memcpys with size smaller than
>> 64 bytes. Perhaps this should be extended to 128 bytes in case we are
>> still about 2 times as bad. This is partly due to lame implementation of
>> memset in glibc too :(
> Would this patch be OK for 3.1.1 branch? It fixes serious
> misscompilation. Not really regression, since extra switch is needed, but
> that switch seems to be popular.
Which extra switch? I couldn't see it in the code, but I can never
remember all the switches. :-)
If this patch has been applied on the mainline and no problems have been
reported, then it is OK for the branch.
Mark Mitchell email@example.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com