On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:14:23 +0200 Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT) > David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 It can if we order bytes in the bridge id properly. See ktime_t for example. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
