On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > (The 16-bit swap would be done via __builtin_bswap32(x)>> 16.)
> > If it's no worse for any platform, and better for some, that's
> > probably sufficient reason to make the change in glibc to u
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> (The 16-bit swap would be done via __builtin_bswap32(x)>> 16.)
> If it's no worse for any platform, and better for some, that's
> probably sufficient reason to make the change in glibc to use it.
It does produce worse code if the target do
On 11/11/2011 3:17 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
I'm cc'ing the gcc mailing list with this reply, so if someone there
can provide an authoritative statement, that would be great. It looks
like right now the i386/x86_64, ia64, and s390 architect
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> I'm cc'ing the gcc mailing list with this reply, so if someone there
> can provide an authoritative statement, that would be great. It looks
> like right now the i386/x86_64, ia64, and s390 architecture don't use
> this header anyway, so it
On 11/11/2011 1:09 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
2011-11-09 Chris Metcalf
* bits/byteswap.h (__bswap*): Use __builtin_bswap for gcc 4.3 and
above. Improves code generation for gcc 4.3 and 4.4 compilers
without bswap pattern detection.
This seems reasonable if some GCC folks can confir
