On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:09 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
> On 11/07/17 05:16, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> I was looking into some bitfield code for aarch64 and was wondering
>> why SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS is set to 0. I can't seem to figure out why
>> though.
>> The header says:
>>Although there
On 11/07/17 05:16, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I was looking into some bitfield code for aarch64 and was wondering
> why SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS is set to 0. I can't seem to figure out why
> though.
> The header says:
>Although there's no difference in instruction count or cycles,
> in AArch64 we don't
I was looking into some bitfield code for aarch64 and was wondering
why SLOW_BYTE_ACCESS is set to 0. I can't seem to figure out why
though.
The header says:
Although there's no difference in instruction count or cycles,
in AArch64 we don't want to expand to a sub-word to a 64-bit access
if
