From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on gnuweeb.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,URIBL_BLOCKED,
	URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.6
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gnuweeb.org;
	s=default; t=1693538690;
	bh=lvnF0NOioC9hcEBmjIlB6eZdb2DagR47ohWj1HFUj7I=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
	b=IuSjWtWzsN8PDqYm+quJR1KNOlhrCoHO/XB+ubKd+1mV6PDy4ZxfR6176TKztawxn
	 IhEpEFiyORLVW7e5BNku4jWx0xW0h93lUuTKFyzUqcGbwu3CVOy87dYItgcreQHFDO
	 oKctO3THuzBmoJVhWiNnhnQPkITLtKNc/rw9Df6lL0d9RqSTwieccDupZyEmSl6rh1
	 wkcb0SEiBIn39qo9jmN7CZNL4DBc9jm2nPU4iUVuGhTUyh0NIcga6sFjpNa5LzOsD8
	 iHIKBM8H20r+MYCjlBsUgFwU36o260C87vJO5zgyLebW19a51rOkxyCwInpDwnecUR
	 A/lSi2oLl1Phg==
Received: from biznet-home.integral.gnuweeb.org (unknown [182.253.126.208])
	by gnuweeb.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 872EC24B372;
	Fri,  1 Sep 2023 10:24:47 +0700 (WIB)
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 10:24:42 +0700
From: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>,
	Nicholas Rosenberg <inori@vnlx.org>,
	Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <alviro.iskandar@gnuweeb.org>,
	Michael William Jonathan <moe@gnuweeb.org>,
	GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@vger.gnuweeb.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/5] tools/nolibc: x86-64: Use `rep cmpsb` for
 `memcmp()`
Message-ID: <ZPFZejgd0h7ErwLL@biznet-home.integral.gnuweeb.org>
References: <20230830135726.1939997-1-ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
 <20230830135726.1939997-4-ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
 <ZO+0IW1zS9QNpP4y@1wt.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZO+0IW1zS9QNpP4y@1wt.eu>
X-Bpl: hUx9VaHkTWcLO7S8CQCslj6OzqBx2hfLChRz45nPESx5VSB/xuJQVOKOB1zSXE3yc9ntP27bV1M1
List-Id: <gwml.vger.gnuweeb.org>

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 11:26:57PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Out of curiosity, given that you implemented the 3 other ones directly
> in an asm statement, is there a particular reason this one mixes a bit
> of C and asm ?

Because this one maybe unused. The other are explicitly exported.

> It would probably be something around this, in the same vein:
> 
>   memcmp:
>     xchg  %esi,%eax   // source1
>     mov   %rdx,%rcx   // count
>     rep   cmpsb       // source2 in rdi; sets ZF on equal, CF if src1<src2
>     seta  %al         // 0 if src2 <= src1, 1 if src2 > src1
>     sbb   $0, %al     // 0 if src2 == src1, -1 if src2 < src1, 1 if src2 > src1
>     movsx %al, %eax   // sign extend to %eax
>     ret
> 
> Note that the output logic could have to be revisited, I'm not certain but
> at first glance it looks valid.

After thinking about this more, I think I'll drop the memcmp() patch
because it will prevent optimization when comparing a small value.

For example, without __asm__:

    memcmp(var, "abcd", 4);

may compile to:

    cmpl $0x64636261, %reg
    ...something...

But with __asm__, the compiler can't do that. Thus, it's not worth
optimizing the memcmp() in this case.

-- 
Ammar Faizi