On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@bitrange.com> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, David Wohlferd wrote: >> Sorry for the (very) delayed response. I'm still looking for feedback here >> so >> I can fix the docs. > > Thank you for your diligence. > >> As I said before, triggering a full memory clobber for anything over 16 bytes >> (and most sizes under 16 bytes) makes this feature all but useless. So if >> that's really what's happening, we need to decide what to do next: >> >> 1) Can this be "fixed?" >> 2) Do we want to doc the current behavior? >> 3) Or do we just remove this section? >> >> I think it could be a nice performance win for inline asm if it could be made >> to work right, but I have no idea what might be involved in that. Failing >> that, I guess if it doesn't work and isn't going to work, I'd recommend >> removing the text for this feature. >> >> Since all 3 suggestions require a doc change, I'll just say that I'm prepared >> to start work on the doc patch as soon as someone lets me know what the plan >> is. >> >> Richard? Hans-Peter? Your thoughts? > > I've forgot if someone mentioned whether we have a test-case in > our test-suite for this feature. If we don't, then 3; removal. > If we do, I guess it's flawed or at least not agreeing with the > documentation? Then it *might* be worth the effort fixing that > and additional test-coverage (depending on the person stepping > up...) but 3 is IMHO still an arguably sane option.
Well, as what is missing is just an optimization I'd say we should try to fix it. And surely the docs should not promise that optimization will happen - it should just mention that doing this might allow optimization to happen. Richard. > brgds, H-P
