This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v1.2] Improve unaligned memcpy and memmove.
- From: Liubov Dmitrieva <liubov dot dmitrieva at gmail dot com>
- To: Ondřej Bílka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 17:46:51 +0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v1.2] Improve unaligned memcpy and memmove.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20130819085220 dot GB19541 at domone> <20130829153829 dot GA6105 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20131003220926 dot GA12203 at domone dot podge> <CAHjhQ93gDTLC9jh56PPXPf0DndUBxVd371Xpw1+vPM9HVnHHfw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131004125248 dot GA23055 at domone dot podge> <CAHjhQ904LgYwKXjqPyTZp4SDoc6t7Q+cFhmhsLgXydFQ3vbHpg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131004132942 dot GA23955 at domone dot podge>
I am surprised that rep is faster on Atom because Atom is known for slow reps...
We should recheck it.
You probably should join that memcpy patches into one to simplify
review and to make clear what version for which processor will be
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM, OndÅej BÃlka <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 05:07:35PM +0400, Liubov Dmitrieva wrote:
>> Can we make "**back" versions clean up in this patch?
>> Are there any processors still use it?
>> Atom and core2 uses "***ssse3" version not the "***back" ones.
>> Do we need to handle these "***back" versions now?
> Yes but not in this patch, they are used at memmmove.
> I do this in improved ssse3 version that I wrote here,
> I will prepare actual patch today.