On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Nathan Sidwell <nat...@acm.org> wrote: > On 04/26/2017 04:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Nathan Sidwell <nat...@acm.org> wrote: > > >> Please use 'inline' rather than 'static inline'. > > > Oh, ok (must have been misled by some exiting static inline somewhere) >> >> >> Did you test the patch produces the same CRCs than before? Did you do >> any performance measurements? > > > Yes. > 1) applied both to a random incoming checksum and random value. A billion > iterations showed no differences. > > 2) 100 million iterations show the new version slightly more than twice as > fast. > >> Otherwise looks ok to me. I wonder why we have this "copy" at all rather >> than using libiberties xcrc32? > > > Hm, not entirely sure, I originally introduced crc32_string back in 2003, > which could have used libiberty's (unless perhaps at that time things were > out of sync, so we didn't have it there?) For some reason I chose not to. > > But now, we commonly get the CRC of individual byte values or unsigneds, > which the xcrc32 interface doesn't do well. David Li broke it apart to make > that useful in 2011.
I see. > ok with the static inline fix? Ok. Thanks, Richard. > nathan > > -- > Nathan Sidwell
