On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 11:37:44PM +0100, David Laight wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:53:35PM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:57:39PM +0200, Rein Klazes wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Just did not feel like chasing bugs the other day. I decided to have
> > > some fu
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:53:35PM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:57:39PM +0200, Rein Klazes wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just did not feel like chasing bugs the other day. I decided to have
> > some fun with something that I wondering for a long time: the usefulness
> > of i
Rein Klazes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Conclusions:
>
> 1. these routines are so fast that it is hard to imagine that these
> functions will be a bottleneck, justifying such optimization;
> 2. nothing shows here that inline assembly brings any advantage.
You are right, that assembly code is mo
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:57:39PM +0200, Rein Klazes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just did not feel like chasing bugs the other day. I decided to have
> some fun with something that I wondering for a long time: the usefulness
> of inline i86 assembly in string functions.
Well, you could do unrolling and lar
Hi,
Just did not feel like chasing bugs the other day. I decided to have
some fun with something that I wondering for a long time: the usefulness
of inline i86 assembly in string functions.
This is the test program as.c:
-8<-
#i
