Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:26:41 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, Rong-en Fan <grafan@gmail.com>, Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/locale utf8.c Message-ID: <20071026232641.GJ39759@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <20071026190039.GB38843@nagual.pp.ru> References: <200710150951.l9F9pUm7026506@repoman.freebsd.org> <20071025233536.B99770@fledge.watson.org> <472120E8.90504@samsco.org> <200710261144.34645.jhb@freebsd.org> <472217C2.8020800@samsco.org> <6eb82e0710260954m73b3f17bq2c72a4cdb597640e@mail.gmail.com> <20071026190039.GB38843@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrey Chernov wrote this message on Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 23:00 +0400:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 12:54:21AM +0800, Rong-en Fan wrote:
> > As for RELENG_7 and HEAD, I'm not 100% sure whether we should restore
> > the compatibility as 1) 7.0 is not released yet, 2) we don't promise
> > anything in
> > HEAD branch. However, if most people think get rid of inline stuffs and
> > have libc compatibility are nice, then we do the same for those two branches.
>
> Although standard permits functions only, I object against permanent
> removing inlines from ctype. Almost every system have them as macros or
> inlines and not as function calls, and it is for reason. Ctype functions
> are very inside-loop-intensive, and not speeding them up may slowdown apps
> which do intensive text processing.
Have you done benchmarks to prove that making it a function will slow
it down significantly? Things have changed over the years....
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071026232641.GJ39759>