search for: d56436

...have to patch their libc, which might be > slightly more painful depending on the system. > Users may also include a function named bcmp in their binary, which will overrides the one from libc. Here's a patch with this proposal to see what this looks like: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D56436 > It feels like this optimization would be better done in llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyLibCalls.cpp, and the presence/name checking done via TargetLibraryInfo.cpp. But if you can show a similar performance win in public code, it'd be >> great to attempt to push a more optimized...

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 5:50 AM Clement Courbet <courbet at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 12:34 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> This seems a somewhat odd and overcomplicated way to go about this. >>> >>> Given that bcmp was required in POSIX until relatively recently, I will

...e painful depending on the system. >>> >> >> Users may also include a function named bcmp in their binary, which will >> overrides the one from libc. >> >> Here's a patch with this proposal to see what this looks like: >>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D56436 >>> >> >> It feels like this optimization would be better done in >> llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyLibCalls.cpp, >> > > I'll have a look at this approach. > You're right, that's a better place to do this indeed: https://reviews.llvm.org/D5...