On 07/15/2013 12:02 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Please review following patches:
> 
> http://repo.or.cz/w/mingw-w64/jacek.git/commitdiff/45606ff91bcf7bf34e81acc13ce239bc524290cd
> Let's get rid of empty files.
> 
> http://repo.or.cz/w/mingw-w64/jacek.git/commitdiff/7de73e013cbeec88464d19b07bccfc46285c35a5
> Inline functions are better way for forwarding calls, esp. in this case.
> When we talked about those forwards, I always assumed that those will be
> inlines. Other than the usual less namespace pollution and being less
> sensitive to user code preprocessor tricks, it allows us to have proper
> calling convention. In this case, they would be usually inlined anyway,
> so calling convention doesn't matter much, but having them properly
> declared is better, IMO, and I can imagine valid use cases where it matters.
Hi.

I took a look at the patches and as far as I understand it, you are
changing Interlocked*() calls to system DLL functions into inline
functions that will produce interlocked instructions inline in the TU
where I use the Interlocked*() functions.

To me this looks like trading future proof solution for speed. Also, it
is POLA violation.

I hope this is disabled by default / __MINGW_INTRIN_INLINE is undefined
by default.

-- 
VZ


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Mingw-w64-public mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public

Reply via email to