[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka 2011-07-05 11:08:50 UTC --- > > Do you think you could spin a script which also tests memcmp? memcmp is different story. Few years back I rewrote memcpy/memset codegen to allow choosing from several basic implem

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #14 from Justin Lebar 2011-07-04 15:00:36 UTC --- Created attachment 24676 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24676 Test results from my core i7

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #13 from Justin Lebar 2011-07-04 14:40:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > Created attachment 24670 [details] > memcpy/memset testing script > > HJ, > can you please run the attached script with new glibc as > sh test_stringop 64

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka 2011-07-04 10:49:18 UTC --- Created attachment 24670 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24670 memcpy/memset testing script HJ, can you please run the attached script with new glibc as sh test_st

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka 2011-07-04 10:11:03 UTC --- H.J, if glibc implementation beats gcc even for size of 4, I guess we could just drop the pattern or enable at at -Os only. Or are there easy cases we want to inline, like we do for mem

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #10 from Justin Lebar 2011-06-13 18:18:13 UTC --- Can I force gcc not to use its inlined version?

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC|Serge.Pavlov.at.gnu at |sergos.gnu at gmail dot com |

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 Justin Lebar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||justin.lebar+bug at gmail

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 f

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-11 10:39:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > Hmm, I should read testcases curefully. It is memcmp. GCC is not really smart > on inlining this; I guess we should just disable the inline unless we opti

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com, |

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2010-11-10 21:36:07 UTC --- Hmm, I should read testcases curefully. It is memcmp. GCC is not really smart on inlining this; I guess we should just disable the inline unless we optimize for size since we don't reall

[Bug target/43052] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Assigned