From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 219B41F453 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 15:17:29 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; q=dns; s=default; b=f2ChXXbKOcdS1TIZjg4qvGce1yJPv GFxruNkEMX5WAWFV6cB3ZIY0Fx60xLB9e+ub77xn9KT70BmoNIn1STnUG7qAb7P8 fF6L1bEkSo3T7ZC09ahRuzjRvMYk2XUrOo5qYs0XJ0N4aYy0uhf+EQ0Kg4gaqGiQ o9pZksm0Vh7ves= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; s=default; bh=La3HUqEf4GdMS2iy2PIhSd1FKMs=; b=GpL f9fnKbic4kNMSrMtTeVqS0O7gPXgPCV2RuvI6+aNbMeB4EznzDZUioGp48Wz9DLS 3PQInZiWgoWK+L/KYDbLDAjBNSubm/eIpHYV4Kw185eIziVKe5icgPmNAf17f2Bp vTb3mvQI2Dm4msOxn6rB/4oKKMCCI8onADP/yEOk= Received: (qmail 8568 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2019 15:17:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 8391 invoked by uid 89); 5 Feb 2019 15:17:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: EUR03-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armh.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-arm-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Mz1N0xyOy+wE8zzbIJ5QtcIZGzFZ7v0rtgjbmG7CMf8=; b=qBhzM2utjQ9oMjYbk4UKk0Rvfr7CowR3yovNyqPmDZVyWU4yKmf2KuB67zSxE8swWmKLWVNNZX5N+XsTb9Zk2fYuvuCfSG3mAdm9M0Yqnh0MHhWKWidyZmExf08fTVgXRY2sUmLzLxeDN1e0MUP6DNKwhSEUPtbiMgIK6k0Fx5w= From: Wilco Dijkstra To: Adhemerval Zanella , 'GNU C Library' CC: nd Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve string benchtests Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 15:17:18 +0000 Message-ID: References: ,<49967cf5-a89a-fa17-5c94-556c92705bef@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <49967cf5-a89a-fa17-5c94-556c92705bef@linaro.org> authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: arm.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED Hi Adhemerval, > Space after cast. As a side note, this won't evaluate wstpcpy as-is, sin= ce it > will use an optimized version and it will result in a wrong generic name = for > wcscpy. I'll have a look at that. Maybe we could create GENERIC_STPCPY from concatenation of the STPCPY define. I want to avoid huge amounts of defines leading to completely incomprehensible magic. > And as a following cleanup for wcpcpy we can use the similar code for str= cpy > adjusting for wide-chars: Sure, there are lots of generic string functions which aren't optimized yet= . However that's a different patch... This patch simply makes it easy to find those c= ases. > Same as before for wcpncpy: instead of reimplement the generic implementa= tion > on benchtests we can just include them. And it also leads to an possible > optimization on generic implementation for wcpncpy. The point is to enable useful comparisons of string implementations. If we = include the generic implementation then we just compare the generic implementation = with itself in many cases. And that isn't useful. If I change a generic implemen= tation I want to see the difference that makes in the benchmark comparison rather th= an showing no difference. Maybe the name generic_xxx is confusing? It's meant to be the baseline, something which you should beat in all cases with the actual implementation= . Cheers, Wilco =A0=20