From: "Albrecht Dreß" <albrecht.dress@arcor.de>
To: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: tiny memcpy_(to|from)io optimisation
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 12:11:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1243764699.3217.0@antares> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OFC4733C3C.0E94C44D-ONC12575C5.00215A32-C12575C5.0023DB18@transmode.se> (from joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se on Fri May 29 08:31:39 2009)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 961 bytes --]
Hi Jocke:
Am 29.05.09 08:31 schrieb(en) Joakim Tjernlund:
> > No (and I wasn't aware of the PPC pre-inc vs. post-inc stuff) - I
> just
>
> I think this is true for most RISC based CPU's. It is a pity as
> post ops are a lot more common. The do {} while(--chunks) is also
> better. Basically the "while(--chunks)" is free(but only if you don't
> use
> chunks inside the loop).
Just a side note: I looked at the assembly output of gcc 4.3.3 coming
with Ubuntu Jaunty/PowerPC for
<snip case="1">
n >>= 2;
do {
*++dst = *++src;
} while (--n);
<snip>
and
<snip case="2">
n >>= 2;
while (n--)
*dst++ = *src++;
</snip>
Using the gcc options "-O2 -mcpu=603e -mtune=603e" (same effect with
"-O3" instead of "-O2") the loop core is *exactly* the same in both
cases.
With gcc 4.2.2 (coming with ELDK 4.2) the loop core in case 2 is indeed
one statement longer, though...
Best, Albrecht.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-31 10:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-27 20:00 [PATCH] powerpc: tiny memcpy_(to|from)io optimisation Albrecht Dreß
2009-05-28 16:13 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2009-05-28 19:50 ` Albrecht Dreß
2009-05-29 6:31 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2009-05-31 10:11 ` Albrecht Dreß [this message]
2009-06-01 6:14 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2009-06-02 18:45 ` Albrecht Dreß
2009-06-02 22:51 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-06-03 14:36 ` Kenneth Johansson
2009-06-03 18:35 ` Albrecht Dreß
2009-06-11 17:07 ` Wolfram Sang
2009-06-11 17:30 ` Grant Likely
2009-06-19 18:42 ` Lorenz Kolb
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1243764699.3217.0@antares \
--to=albrecht.dress@arcor.de \
--cc=joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.