On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't > use memcmp(). It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use unsigned long > comparisons when both objects are aligned correctly but we also > don't want it to use any more than one potentially mispredicted > branch. Again, memcmp() *cannot* be optimized, because its semantic is to compare bytes. memcpy() can take into account alignement if known at compile time, not memcmp() http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/03/13/31 > > We could add some alignment tests to the ethernet address > comparison code, but it's probably more trouble than it's > worth. > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
