[PING] [PATCH] x86_32: memcpy, mempcpy, memmove, memcpy_chk, mempcpy_chk, memmove_chk optimized with SSE2 unaligned loads/stores
Joseph Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
Tue Dec 30 17:09:00 GMT 2014
- Previous message (by thread): [PING] [PATCH] x86_32: memcpy, mempcpy, memmove, memcpy_chk, mempcpy_chk, memmove_chk optimized with SSE2 unaligned loads/stores
- Next message (by thread): [PING] [PATCH] x86_32: memcpy, mempcpy, memmove, memcpy_chk, mempcpy_chk, memmove_chk optimized with SSE2 unaligned loads/stores
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:15:00PM +0100, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 02:56:10PM +0300, Andrew Senkevich wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > it is ping for patch which was discussed at the beginning of august,
> > > end of discussion is
> > > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-08/msg00078.html
> > >
> > > Is it Ok for trunk?
> > >
> > It looked OK for me performancewise. I planned to check that for bugs
> > which is still in my TODO list. If somebody else checked that it would
> > be ok to commit.
>
> I checked it in with a couple fixes:
This sort of new optimized functions should have a NEWS entry.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
- Previous message (by thread): [PING] [PATCH] x86_32: memcpy, mempcpy, memmove, memcpy_chk, mempcpy_chk, memmove_chk optimized with SSE2 unaligned loads/stores
- Next message (by thread): [PING] [PATCH] x86_32: memcpy, mempcpy, memmove, memcpy_chk, mempcpy_chk, memmove_chk optimized with SSE2 unaligned loads/stores
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list