On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 14:54, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> I don't think the make bench discussion is totally relevant in this
> case. We'd like to see what the performance of this stuff is and it's
> always goign to be a battle to get things benchmarked perfectly on
> hardware and there is unli
On 04/06/2018 19:12, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 06/04/2018 11:00 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
Do you plan to adapt them to glibc?
Ramana suggested starting "upstream" in cortex-strings and copying to glibc
from there, as a general work-flow preference. I believe this has been the
case for a
On 04/06/2018 19:30, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 06/04/2018 11:19 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
Yes, using cortex-strings as the bridge is indeed the preferred way. I am
asking which strategy do you see:
- Adding ifunc variants and add them as default if system advertise SVE
support.
On 06/04/2018 11:19 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> Yes, using cortex-strings as the bridge is indeed the preferred way. I am
> asking which strategy do you see:
>
> - Adding ifunc variants and add them as default if system advertise SVE
> support.
>
> - Or adding as an extra option (as
On 04/06/2018 15:12, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 06/04/2018 11:00 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> Do you plan to adapt them to glibc?
>
> Ramana suggested starting "upstream" in cortex-strings and copying to glibc
> from there, as a general work-flow preference. I believe this has been the
>
On 06/04/2018 11:00 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> Do you plan to adapt them to glibc?
Ramana suggested starting "upstream" in cortex-strings and copying to glibc
from there, as a general work-flow preference. I believe this has been the
case for all of the other aarch64 string routines.
For no
Do you plan to adapt them to glibc?
On 02/06/2018 19:46, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 06/01/2018 02:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Thanks for doing these. One general comment is that the routines
>> tend to use the FFR result even in the case where no potential
>> fault is detected.
>
> Tha
On 1 June 2018 at 18:24, Richard Henderson wrote:
> [ How odd. I could find no record that the message to which you are replying
> was ever actually sent. I assumed I simply closed the window instead of
> hitting send. And thus I just now sent a second reply. ]
Our mailing list server apparent
On 06/01/2018 02:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Henderson writes:
>> I spoke with Ramana about these at HKG18, and I'm finally getting back to
>> these. I have routines for
>>
>> -rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rth 2538 May 30 19:12 memchr.S
>> -rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rth 2405 May 30 20:49 memcmp.S
>> -rw
On 06/01/2018 02:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Thanks for doing these. One general comment is that the routines
> tend to use the FFR result even in the case where no potential
> fault is detected.
Thanks.
I have updated the patch set on review.linaro.org along the lines you
suggested. I wo
[ How odd. I could find no record that the message to which you are replying
was ever actually sent. I assumed I simply closed the window instead of
hitting send. And thus I just now sent a second reply. ]
On 06/01/2018 09:59 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Is it possible to elaborate on the re
On 06/01/2018 02:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Thanks for doing these. One general comment is that the routines
> tend to use the FFR result even in the case where no potential
> fault is detected. Although it's not as obvious as it could be
> from some of the published documentation, the arc
Richard Henderson writes:
> On 06/01/2018 02:32 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Henderson writes:
>>> I spoke with Ramana about these at HKG18, and I'm finally getting back to
>>> these. I have routines for
>>>
>>> -rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rth 2538 May 30 19:12 memchr.S
>>> -rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rt
Richard Henderson writes:
> I spoke with Ramana about these at HKG18, and I'm finally getting back to
> these. I have routines for
>
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rth 2538 May 30 19:12 memchr.S
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rth 2405 May 30 20:49 memcmp.S
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rth 2385 May 30 19:12 rawmemchr.S
> -rw-rw
On 31 May 2018 at 23:07, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Thanks. I believe I've now successfully done so.
> Please let me know if my procedure is off; this is
> my first time using gerrit.
You need to add reviewers to your review requests. I'd suggest adding
at least Adhemerval, Christophe and Maxim
On 05/31/2018 01:12 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> I believe the canonical procedure to submit patches to cortex-strings
> is via gerrit: review.linaro.org. If you have the git-review plugin
> installed it should be as simple as running the 'git review' command.
Thanks. I believe I've now succe
On 31 May 2018 at 09:38, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I spoke with Ramana about these at HKG18, and I'm finally getting back to
> these. I have routines for
>
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rth 2538 May 30 19:12 memchr.S
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rth 2405 May 30 20:49 memcmp.S
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rth 2385 May 30 19
I spoke with Ramana about these at HKG18, and I'm finally getting back to
these. I have routines for
-rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rth 2538 May 30 19:12 memchr.S
-rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rth 2405 May 30 20:49 memcmp.S
-rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rth 2385 May 30 19:12 rawmemchr.S
-rw-rw-r--. 1 rth rth 2470 May 30 19:12 strchr
18 matches
Mail list logo
