From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753803AbYIZT52 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:57:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751730AbYIZT5V (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:57:21 -0400 Received: from smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.24]:2311 "EHLO smtp-vbr4.xs4all.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751318AbYIZT5U (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:57:20 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 423 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:57:20 EDT In-Reply-To: <48DD2F68.6000609@zytor.com> References: <20080926124222.GA49837@xs4all.nl> <48DD2F68.6000609@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Joris van Rantwijk Subject: Re: Inflation of vmlinux by linker on x86_64 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:50:11 +0200 To: "H. Peter Anvin" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.624) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 26 sep 2008, at 20:52, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Instead of adding a comment like this, we should simply rename it > memmove(). Yes. I tried, but it clashed with an existing memmove declaration in asm-x86/string_32.h. What is the accepted solution for this? Redefining memmove should be allowed, but then it could no longer be a static function. Using the memmove implementation from the main kernel would be painful and ugly. We could also define "__memmove()" plus "#define memmove __memmove", which would also be ugly. > Furthermore, we probably spend enough time copying that using a real > memmove() implementation, using string instructions, would be good. Are string instructions that much faster? We can also get some speedup by copying ints instead of chars. Joris.