From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <alyapunov@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp62.i.mail.ru (smtp62.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.42])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93584469710
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Mon, 18 May 2020 15:55:40 +0300 (MSK)
References: <cover.1589583614.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
 <172feb69ec2caea2aa63a24de8b76a4dba13bebb.1589583614.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
From: Aleksandr Lyapunov <alyapunov@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <52af1bb7-b125-7490-3882-ce74698789d2@tarantool.org>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 15:55:38 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <172feb69ec2caea2aa63a24de8b76a4dba13bebb.1589583614.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2/2] uuid: fix unaligned memory
	access
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, tsafin@tarantool.org, gorcunov@gmail.com

Thanks for the patch! see my comment below.

On 5/16/20 2:03 AM, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
>   tt_uuid_is_nil(const struct tt_uuid *uu)
>   {
> -	const uint64_t *p = (const uint64_t *) uu;
> -	return !p[0] && !p[1];
> +	const uint32_t *p = (const uint32_t *) uu;
> +	return p[0] == 0 && p[1] == 0 && p[2] == 0 && p[3] == 0;
>   }
>   
>   /**
> @@ -172,9 +172,10 @@ tt_uuid_is_nil(const struct tt_uuid *uu)
>   inline bool
>   tt_uuid_is_equal(const struct tt_uuid *lhs, const struct tt_uuid *rhs)
>   {
> -	const uint64_t *lp = (const uint64_t *) lhs;
> -	const uint64_t *rp = (const uint64_t *) rhs;
> -	return lp[0] == rp[0] && lp[1] == rp[1];
> +	const uint32_t *lp = (const uint32_t *) lhs;
> +	const uint32_t *rp = (const uint32_t *) rhs;
> +	return lp[0] == rp[0] && lp[1] == rp[1] && lp[2] == rp[2] &&
> +	       lp[3] == rp[3];

It seems that we degrade performance just for clang to be happy..
I would suggest to use memcmp in this case.
It's portable and allows a compiler to generate the best possible code.
I've measured it (gcc) and memcmp version is twice faster than your 
solution.
Even for _is_nil method it's better to use memcmp with statically 
allocated zero buffer.