This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@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]

[Bug target/80479] [7/8 Regression] strcmp() produces valgrind errors on ppc64le


https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479

acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |munroesj at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |segher at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #13 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The tests that I have done show that the inline code is 2-3x faster than glibc
(depending on which glibc you are testing). The two big factors are that we can
generate better code because we frequently know the alignment of args in gcc,
and getting rid of the function call overhead. So no, there isn't any magic
from this that can be transplanted into the library function.

The addi 31,31,1 is part of the test case not the strcmp expansion. I missed it
when I was taking out the extraneous ops. The subf. could be changed to xor. as
you say.

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