Hello All,
Here is an old link with some benchmarks and initial information:
http://maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2006-March/003269.html
Now for more completeness, memcpy equivalent is also available and
the functions exist in two flavours (either gcc inline macros, or just
assembly
Siarhei Siamashka wrote:
...
It is strange that such 16-byte alignment trick was neither used in
uclibc nor in glibc until now. One more option is that this improvement
is only Nokia 770 specific and nobody else ever encountered it or had to
use. Well, do we really care anyway? ;)
Now I just
There seems to be no source for the functions in the tarball.
Tomas
Siarhei Siamashka wrote:
Hello All,
Here are the optimized memory copying functions for Nokia 770 (memset is
more than twice faster, memcpy improves about 10-40% depending on
relative data blocks alignment).
Tomas Frydrych wrote:
There seems to be no source for the functions in the tarball.
Siarhei Siamashka wrote:
Hello All,
Here are the optimized memory copying functions for Nokia 770
(memset is more than twice faster, memcpy improves about 10-40%
depending on relative data blocks
Like Dirk already replied, the implementation is in macros in the .h
file.
I see. That makes the comparison with memcpy somewhat unfair, since you
are not actually providing replacement functions, so this would only
make difference for -O3 type optimatisation (where you trade speed for
size);
Hi,
That makes the comparison with memcpy somewhat unfair, since you
are not actually providing replacement functions, so this would only
make difference for -O3 type optimatisation (where you trade speed for
size); it would be interesting to see what the performance difference is
if you add
Tomas Frydrych wrote:
Like Dirk already replied, the implementation is in macros in the .h
file.
I see. That makes the comparison with memcpy somewhat unfair, since you
are not actually providing replacement functions, so this would only
make difference for -O3 type optimatisation (where you
Eero Tamminen wrote:
That makes the comparison with memcpy somewhat unfair, since you
are not actually providing replacement functions, so this would
only make difference for -O3 type optimatisation (where you trade
speed for size); it would be interesting to see what the
performance
