On 10/17/2016 04:30 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
Am I the only software developer so far who would dare to reconsider
implementation details from three status functions?
No.
Thanks for this kind of promising feedback.
But we're waiting for you showing is that it is an improvement.
Can this aspect also be clarified to some degree from a logical point of view?
I sincerely doubt that.
We've discussed the logical implications already, and failed to come to
a consensus. So we need some proof (as in: on this architecture I'm
seeing this and that performance improvements).
Which you have to deliver.
* Would you really like to know under which circumstances data processing
will be faster for a single character instead of using a string pointer
and corresponding two characters?
It's not a problem of the interface, it's a problem of the resulting
code (ie assembler output). We can discuss all we like, if the compiler
decides to throw in an optimisation none of the arguments even apply.
* Do you care for a changed memory allocation characteristic?
* Will it occasionally be useful to avoid the storage for another string literal?
Occasionally: yes.
In this particular case: hardly.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
