Re: memcpy performance regressions 2.19 -> 2.24(5)

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Erich Elsen <eriche@google.com> wrote:
> I was also thinking that it might be nice to have a TUNABLE that sets
> the implementation of memcpy directly.  It would be easier to do this
> if memcpy.S was memcpy.c.  Attached is a patch that does the
> conversion but doesn't add the tunables.  How would you feel about
> this?  It has no runtime impact, probably increases the size slightly,
> and makes the code easier to read / modify.
>

It depends on how far you want to go.  We can add TUNABLE support
to each IFUNC implementation or we can add TUNABLE support to
cpu_features to update processor features.  I prefer latter.


-- 
H.J.