Re: inline build_string performance

[Dmitry Antipov]

On 06/26/2012 08:42 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:

> That sounds worthwhile for critical paths.
>
> How about reverting the build_string change, and defining a new
> inline function build_literal intended for when the argument is a
> string literal and for when speed is more important than conserving
> code space?  That would give us speed where speed matters and where
> we know it'll be faster, while avoiding code bloat otherwise.
> build_string and  build_literal would have identical semantics,
> but different performance properties.

This may be implemented without reverting previous stuff. It will also gives
other (non-GCC) compilers a chance to demonstrate their optimization skills.

Dmitry

literal.patch
Description: Text document