From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [ARM] Translate delay.S into (mostly) C From: Daniel Walker In-Reply-To: <4CACC053.2090509@codeaurora.org> References: <1285644827-6846-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <1285644827-6846-2-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <1286299355.18791.11.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <4CABEECB.4030301@codeaurora.org> <4CACC053.2090509@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:35:43 -0700 Message-ID: <1286393743.22265.129.camel@m0nster> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Russell King , Kevin Hilman , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Saravana Kannan , Santosh Shilimkar , Colin Cross , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-ID: On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 11:30 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Is there some way to force GCC to do what I want (interleave the > functions)? It seems happy to inline them and then optimize the > register > usage and instruction ordering. Perhaps that is OK though and we're > wasting our time trying to be conservative in code size. Is it possible to do all this in assembly ? Can't you have the default implementation using this assembly with different function names, then just set the assembly function names in C code someplace? Daniel -- Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.