On 27 September 2011 14:16, Christian Robottom Reis <k...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 09:47:33AM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> On 26 September 2011 21:51, Michael Hope <michael.h...@linaro.org> wrote: >> > Saw this on the linaro-multimedia list: >> > http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-multimedia/2011-September/000074.html >> > >> > libpng spends a significant amount of time in memcpy(). This might >> > tie in with Ramana's investigation or the unaligned access work by >> > allowing more memcpy()s to be inlined. >> >> It's the unaligned access and the change / improvements to the memcpy >> that *might* help in this case. But that ofcourse depends on the >> compiler knowing when it can do such a thing. Ofcourse what might be >> more interesting is the kind of workload analysis that Dave's done in >> the past with memcpy to know what the alignment and size of the buffer >> being copied is. > > If you guys could take a look at this there is a potential requirement > for the MMWG around libpng optimization; we could fit this in along with > other work (possible vectorizing, etc) on that component.
It wouldn't take long to analyse the memcpy calls - life would be easier if we had the test program and some details on things like what size of images were used in these benchmarks. Dave _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
