This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Linux and Windows generate different binaries


On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:10:01AM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > How? There's no stable sort in libc and switching over to std::stable_sort
> > > would be problematic.
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> - you'd need to decide if the build time cost of extra 8000+ lines
>   lines brought in by <algorithm> (per each TU) is acceptable;
> 
> - you'd need to decide if the code size cost of multiple instantiations
>   of template stable_sort is acceptable (or take measures to unify them);

OTOH it should be faster than calling callbacks all the time.

> - you'd need to adapt comparators, as STL uses a different interface
>   that C qsort;
> 
> - you'd need to ensure it doesn't lead to a noticeable slowdown.

Okay, so the slowness of compiling STL stuff is a very real issue.

> > Sure.  Some of our sorts in fact require stable sort though
> 
> At moment only bb-reorder appears to use std::stable_sort, is that what
> you meant, or are there more places?

For example all_saved_regs (in caller-save.c) ensures a stable sort
(I don't know if it actually needs it, or this is just to ensure
only identical objects compare equal).  I know the one in bb-reorder
very much does need it (I added it myself).  Sure, you can avoid it
by essentially doing it manually (with a last-resort comparison).


Segher


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]