linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 --]

  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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).