On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 12:08:35AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> We can get those optimizations back by doing:
>
> #define memcpy(d, s, n) __builtin_memcpy((d), (s), (n))
You might still want to put a prototype in, just before the define.
Joerg
> Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 09:40:05 +1100
> From: Jonathan Gray
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 05:07:11PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 00:08:35 +0100 (CET)
> > > From: Mark Kettenis
> > >
> > > We already do this on some
On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 05:07:11PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 00:08:35 +0100 (CET)
> > From: Mark Kettenis
> >
> > We already do this on some architectures, but not on amd64 for
> > example. The main reason is that this disables memcpy()
On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 05:44:07PM +0100, Jérôme FRGACIC wrote:
> Hi @tech,
>
> I remark that ed(1) do not support adress ranges which begin with
> comma or semicolon, for example ",10p" which is equivalent to "1,10p" or
> "; +10p" which is equivalent to ".;+10p". These adress ranges are
>
Hi @tech,
I remark that ed(1) do not support adress ranges which begin with
comma or semicolon, for example ",10p" which is equivalent to "1,10p" or
"; +10p" which is equivalent to ".;+10p". These adress ranges are
specified by Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6 (IEEE Std 1003.1,
2004
> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 00:08:35 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mark Kettenis
>
> We already do this on some architectures, but not on amd64 for
> example. The main reason is that this disables memcpy() optimizations
> that have a measurable impact on the network stack
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:06:34PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> Same diff for ospf6d, ok?
Yes. OK.
> Index: printconf.c
> ===
> RCS file: /d/cvs/src/usr.sbin/ospf6d/printconf.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.4
> diff -u -p