https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
--- Comment #15 from fdlbxtqi <euloanty at live dot com> --- (In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #14) > I think It is worth the effort to rewrite these functions since they are so > fundamental to the performance of entire C++. What I am worry about is that > whether revamping these functions would be a new ABI breaking. > > If it won’t, I would like to contribute my implementation. > > Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 > > From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org<mailto:gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> > Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 03:22 > To: euloa...@live.com<mailto:euloa...@live.com> > Subject: [Bug libstdc++/93059] char and char8_t does not talk with each > other with memcpy. std::copy std::copy_n, std::fill, std::fill_n, > std::uninitialized_copy std::uninitialized_copy_n, std::fill, > std::uninitialized_fill_n fails to convert to memxxx functions > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059 > > --- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #11) > > TBH. I would rather see the library does the optimization instead of the > > compiler. I do not trust the compiler can always optimize this stuff. > > If we have both, that looks even safer ;-) > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug. > You reported the bug. I think It is worth the effort to rewrite these functions since they are so fundamental to the performance of entire C++. Revamping them would create 100% of performance benefits in a lot of important benchmarks. What I am worried about is that whether revamping these functions would be a new wave of ABI breaking.
