On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 05:51:39PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
>
> > note that this define wasn't necessary on 32-bit x86 because there's
> > custom 32-bit assembly which uses unaligneds even more aggressively than
> > the C code does even when given UNALIGNED_OK.
>
> Which custom 32 bit assembly are you referring to here?
my apologies... i usually research my bug reports better.
these files have assembly:
./build-tree/zlib-1.2.3/contrib/asm586/match.S
./build-tree/zlib-1.2.3/contrib/asm686/match.S
./build-tree/zlib-1.2.3/contrib/inflate86/inffast.S
but it doesn't appear that they're actually being used.
and i can't even reproduce my results... here's the averages of the user
cpu seconds for 10 runs of "minizip -9o a.zip linux-2.6.19.tar":
baseline -DUNALIGNED_OK
k8 revF 26.62 26.59
core2 28.43 28.44
the differences are measurement noise... huh.
and similarly for miniunz:
baseline -DUNALIGNED_OK
k8 revF 1.29 1.30
core2 1.47 1.49
i wonder what i did differently the day i filed that report... i know
i saw an improvement that time :)
sorry for wasting your time... go ahead and close this out (unless you
want to use it as a reminder to see if the 32-bit assembly helps...)
-dean
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
