From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769C1DDF1C
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Wed,  5 Mar 2008 16:26:18 +1100 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <18382.7074.69060.661720@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
References: <1204301097.14759.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1204340690.15052.457.camel@pasglop>
	<18382.7074.69060.661720@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <d495403c2b5f700be085c965746cd211@kernel.crashing.org>
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add strncmp to PowerPC
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 06:26:06 +0100
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

>> Do we have any indication that it performs better than the C one ?
>
> I would expect it to, given that the assembler one has two branches in
> the per-byte loop compared to 3 in the C version.

But really, does it matter for strncmp() in the kernel?

Anyway, this asm code has bugs, as do both the current C version in the
kernel, and the code I posted.  We need to do better :-)


Segher