On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 02:11:30PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
> I'd say if a platform doesn't bother optimizing memcmp() then they
> deserve the resulting performance.  And it's probably not too bad a
> penalty because such comparisons probably won't make up a significant
> part of most applications.

I tend to agree with this.  On many modern versions of GCC, the compiler
can generate an appropriately optimized inline version when it sees a
memcmp call, so it's more of a compiler issue then, since no actual call
to the function will be emitted.

>  static inline int hashcmp(const unsigned char *sha1, const unsigned char 
> *sha2)
>  {
> +     const uint32_t *p1 = (const uint32_t *)sha1;
> +     const uint32_t *p2 = (const uint32_t *)sha2;

You can't make this cast.  The guaranteed alignment for sha1 and sha2 is
1, and for p1 and p2, it's 4.  If sha1 and sha2 are not suitably
aligned, this will get a SIGBUS on sparc and possibly a wrong value on

[0] http://www.aleph1.co.uk/chapter-10-arm-structured-alignment-faq

brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to