Re: [PATCH 1/3] compat: add qsort_s()
- From
René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
- Date
- Dec 21, 2016, 09:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <2203c696-3a86-626b-c516-285daef15022@web.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <20161212195703.nmljhwwmrn56gbyd@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Am 12.12.2016 um 20:57 schrieb Jeff King:
Show 10 quoted lines
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 08:51:14PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote: > >> It's kinda cool to have a bespoke compatibility layer for major platforms, >> but the more I think about it the less I can answer why we would want that. >> Safety, reliability and performance can't be good reasons -- if our fallback >> function lacks in these regards then we have to improve it in any case. > > There may be cases that we don't want to support because of portability > issues. E.g., if your libc has an assembly-optimized qsort() we wouldn't > want to replicate that.
Offloading to GPUs might be a better example; I don't know of a libc that does any of that, though (yet).
> I dunno. I am not that opposed to just saying "forget libc qsort, we > always use our internal one which is consistent, performant, and safe". > But when I suggested something similar for our regex library, I seem to > recall there were complaints.
Well, I'm not sure how comparable they are, but perhaps we can avoid compat code altogether in this case. Patch coming in a new thread.
René