Sorry for the delayed reply.
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 09:44 +0200, Christian Bruel wrote:
> On 03/30/2014 11:02 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 08:58 +0100, Christian Bruel wrote:
> >
> >> This patches adds a few instructions to the inlined builtin_strlen to
> >> unroll the
On 03/30/2014 11:02 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 08:58 +0100, Christian Bruel wrote:
>
>> This patches adds a few instructions to the inlined builtin_strlen to
>> unroll the remaining bytes for word-at-a-time loop. This enables to have
>> 2 distinct execution paths (no fall
Hi,
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 08:58 +0100, Christian Bruel wrote:
> This patches adds a few instructions to the inlined builtin_strlen to
> unroll the remaining bytes for word-at-a-time loop. This enables to have
> 2 distinct execution paths (no fall-thru in the byte-at-a-time loop),
> allowing block
Christian Bruel wrote:
> This patches adds a few instructions to the inlined builtin_strlen to
> unroll the remaining bytes for word-at-a-time loop. This enables to have
> 2 distinct execution paths (no fall-thru in the byte-at-a-time loop),
> allowing block alignment assignation. This partially i
Hello,
This patches adds a few instructions to the inlined builtin_strlen to
unroll the remaining bytes for word-at-a-time loop. This enables to have
2 distinct execution paths (no fall-thru in the byte-at-a-time loop),
allowing block alignment assignation. This partially improves the
problem repo
