Re: [PATCH 0/9] introducing oideq()

2018-08-28 Thread brian m. carlson
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:21:27PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 08:56:21PM +, brian m. carlson wrote: > > I would quite like to see this series picked up for v2.20. If we want > > to minimize performance regressions with the SHA-256 work, I think it's > > important. > > T

Re: [PATCH 0/9] introducing oideq()

2018-08-28 Thread Derrick Stolee
On 8/28/2018 5:21 PM, Jeff King wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 08:56:21PM +, brian m. carlson wrote: Due to the simplicity of the current code and our inlining, the compiler can usually figure this out for now. So I wouldn't expect this patch to actually improve performance right away. But

Re: [PATCH 0/9] introducing oideq()

2018-08-28 Thread Jeff King
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 08:56:21PM +, brian m. carlson wrote: > > Due to the simplicity of the current code and our inlining, the compiler > > can usually figure this out for now. So I wouldn't expect this patch to > > actually improve performance right away. But as that discussion shows, > >

Re: [PATCH 0/9] introducing oideq()

2018-08-27 Thread Derrick Stolee
On 8/26/2018 4:56 PM, brian m. carlson wrote: On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 04:00:31AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: This is a follow-up to the discussion in: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180822030344.ga14...@sigill.intra.peff.net/ The general idea is that the majority of callers don't care about act

Re: [PATCH 0/9] introducing oideq()

2018-08-26 Thread brian m. carlson
On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 04:00:31AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > This is a follow-up to the discussion in: > > https://public-inbox.org/git/20180822030344.ga14...@sigill.intra.peff.net/ > > The general idea is that the majority of callers don't care about actual > plus/minus ordering from oidcmp()