While trying to create a simple testcase demonstrating a bug in the xlc
compiler, I did a little experiment. Here is a code snip from core.c:
snip
/* Code from core.c */
if (mode == AP_MODE_INIT) {
return APR_SUCCESS;
}
if (!ctx)
{
ctx = apr_pcalloc(f-c-pool, sizeof(*ctx));
Bill Stoddard wrote:
And here is that same code with the macros unrolled. The xlc
optimizer chokes on this. This is just nasty.
/me vomits
I've hated the concealment of code inside these macros from
Day 1. One or two lines of code in a macro, fine; functionality
like this.. megasuckage.
--
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
And here is that same code with the macros unrolled. The xlc optimizer
chokes on this. avoid_xlc_bug() just returns 1 and does nothing else (and
makes the optimzer happy again). This is just nasty.
Can you be more specific about what the bug is,
Bill Stoddard wrote:
While trying to create a simple testcase demonstrating a bug in the xlc
compiler, I did a little experiment. Here is a code snip from core.c:
I'm just wondering if there is any kind of measureable performance
benefit in keeping these as a macro vs putting them in a
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
I'm just wondering if there is any kind of measureable performance
benefit in keeping these as a macro vs putting them in a function
(possibly inline if the compiler can support it).
I'm quite sure there is a performance benefit, though admittedly I
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
I'm just wondering if there is any kind of measureable performance
benefit in keeping these as a macro vs putting them in a function
(possibly inline if the compiler can support it).
I'm quite sure
Ian Holsman wrote:
Bill Stoddard wrote:
While trying to create a simple testcase demonstrating a bug in the xlc
compiler, I did a little experiment. Here is a code snip from core.c:
I'm just wondering if there is any kind of measureable performance
benefit in keeping these as a
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
A better question IMHO, is whether any of those macros can be made less
complex.
It's a good question, but IMO the answer is no. The ring macros are very
tight and easy to read... like I said, they're about four lines each.
The brigade macros are, for
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
A better question IMHO, is whether any of those macros can be made less
complex.
It's a good question, but IMO the answer is no. The ring macros are very
tight and easy to read... like I said, they're
