[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPfzE3aKWgRhNuvM846xTSB2eHS5AZugME6ruLmgwCcuCOPDOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 12:15:21 +1300
From: Andre Renaud <andre@...ewatersys.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: ARM optimisations
Hi,
Can anyone tell me what the policy for musl is regarding ARM optimised
assembly implementations of functions such as memcpy/memmove? I notice
that there are i386/x86_64 versions for some of these. Doing some
simple testing on an ARM platform I found that an ARM asm
implementation of memcpy is ~80% faster than the C one currently in
MUSL (this is on an ARMv5, so no NEON instructions or similar).
I don't think I'm capable of writing the optimised version entirely
myself, however there are various implementations floating around in
libraries such as bionic etc... Is it possible to have BSD licensed
code brought in to musl (which is MIT licensed)?
Regards,
Andre
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
