On Monday, 02 January 2006, at 04:28:52 (-0700), Tres Melton wrote: > Patch 1) > #ifdef HAVE_SSE2 XImage * __attribute__ ((aligned (16))) ximg; > First problem with this patch is that glibc can't guarantee anything > more than 8 bytes of alignment. For more alignment you need to use > posix_memalign(). Second issue is that this will align the pointer to > the data but not the data; and in reality it isn't ximg that needs > aligned but ximage -> data and that allocation is done in X and I'm > looking into getting that to align correctly for x86-64 right now.
Applied. > Patch 2) > I'm not positive about this one but it seems right to me. Once you > shade it there should be no reason to shade it again. I think you're correct. Applied. > Patch 3) > There was talk about imlib2 routines failing on aligned memory moves and > the solution was temporarily to change the aligned moves to unaligned. > That worried me a bit when I wrote these so I did everything with > unaligned moves. Since two registers will always be aligned I changed > the moves from movdqu to movdqa. Applied. > Patch 4) > This is just copyright update and comment cleanup. (And don't forget to > update the copyright dates in pixmap.c as it was a year behind > yesterday; now it's two years out of date. :) Applied, and copyright dates have been changed. :-) > I have a patch that works here that checks for alignment or not and > then calls the existing unaligned routine or a different aligned > routine but that might be disruptive so I want to submit that as > part of a much larger set. I've included things like cache > prefetching, x86 SSE2 and I have a couple of instructions left in > translating sse2 to sse so that x86 can use sse which should double > their shading speeds. Sounds good. You're not referring to the 15/16 patch you sent, right? > That is going to create a problem with the HAVE_SSE macros as it > will now be valid on both x86 and x86-64. Anyway, I'm going to be > releasing a testing program that tests the different things and, as > Raster requested, some profiling code so we know what we are > actually gaining. If needed, both configure-time and run-time checks for MMX/SSE/SSE2 can be added. > Anyway, this presumes that you've attached the first set of patches > from the other day. This should be added to the "needs lots of > testing" branch of the code. I've tested it here and all is good. It would probably be better to commit and see how it goes. :) Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "There are times it seems to me I'm sharing you with memories. I feel it in my heart, but I don't show it. And then there's times when you look at me as though I'm all that you can see. Those times I don't believe it's right; I know it." -- O-Town, "All or Nothing" ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
