Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:00:39 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Rong-en Fan <grafan@gmail.com> Cc: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, cvs-src@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/locale utf8.c Message-ID: <20071026190039.GB38843@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <6eb82e0710260954m73b3f17bq2c72a4cdb597640e@mail.gmail.com> References: <200710150951.l9F9pUm7026506@repoman.freebsd.org> <20071025233536.B99770@fledge.watson.org> <472120E8.90504@samsco.org> <200710261144.34645.jhb@freebsd.org> <472217C2.8020800@samsco.org> <6eb82e0710260954m73b3f17bq2c72a4cdb597640e@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 12:54:21AM +0800, Rong-en Fan wrote: > As for RELENG_7 and HEAD, I'm not 100% sure whether we should restore > the compatibility as 1) 7.0 is not released yet, 2) we don't promise > anything in > HEAD branch. However, if most people think get rid of inline stuffs and > have libc compatibility are nice, then we do the same for those two branches. Although standard permits functions only, I object against permanent removing inlines from ctype. Almost every system have them as macros or inlines and not as function calls, and it is for reason. Ctype functions are very inside-loop-intensive, and not speeding them up may slowdown apps which do intensive text processing. In the case we trade forward compatibility for speed for 6x, may be, I don't have opinion here. -- http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071026190039.GB38843>