[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130308082418.GT6181@port70.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 09:24:18 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] Added ARM optimised memcpy implementation
* Andre Renaud <andre@...ewatersys.com> [2013-03-08 10:48:47 +1300]:
> Was there any form of consensus over whether it was possible to get
> some version of these ARM optimisations merged?
eventually it will be merged i think, but
we have seen string optimizations go very wrong (glibc sse mess..)
so it should be verified to work properly in cornercases
we did not see much measurement data (x% speedup is not measurement
data, the speedup will depend on alignment and size, i guess small
and aligned memcpy will actually be slower than the current c)
most string functions are compiler builtins, so in some cases the
compiler will know better what to do than libc
and it's extra code to maintain, bugfixes get into musl much easier
than arch specific optimizations
but if there is a strong cause for the change then i dont think
anyone is opposed to it
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.
