On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:58:31AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 20/06/2014 10:48, Aurelien Jarno ha scritto:
> >In practice on x86_64, this function takes 27 instructions in the
> >general case, and 18 instructions in the fixed case, even for big
> >sizes. I therefore think that checking if the
Il 20/06/2014 10:48, Aurelien Jarno ha scritto:
In practice on x86_64, this function takes 27 instructions in the
general case, and 18 instructions in the fixed case, even for big
sizes. I therefore think that checking if the size is constant is a good
idea, but we should not make any test on the
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:36:18AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 22/12/2013 12:32, Aurelien Jarno ha scritto:
> >find_first_bit has started to be used heavily in TCG code. The current
> >implementation based on find_next_bit is not optimal and can't be
> >optimized be the compiler if the bit arr
Il 22/12/2013 12:32, Aurelien Jarno ha scritto:
find_first_bit has started to be used heavily in TCG code. The current
implementation based on find_next_bit is not optimal and can't be
optimized be the compiler if the bit array has a fixed size, which is
the case most of the time.
If you mean b
On 12/22/2013 03:32 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> find_first_bit has started to be used heavily in TCG code. The current
> implementation based on find_next_bit is not optimal and can't be
> optimized be the compiler if the bit array has a fixed size, which is
> the case most of the time.
>
> This n
find_first_bit has started to be used heavily in TCG code. The current
implementation based on find_next_bit is not optimal and can't be
optimized be the compiler if the bit array has a fixed size, which is
the case most of the time.
This new implementation does not use find_next_bit and is yet sm
