On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Josh Coalson wrote: > actually I think you're right, there are times when you want/ > need everything to be in assembler for the best performance.
I'll try to compare my assembly to compiled code. I went through several iterations of code structure, some of which were not doable in C. But IIRC what I ended up with is close to a switch statement without breaks (a construct I have never expected to use!). If that's true, and assuming altivec.h gives you direct access to the vector registers, I may be able to get similar performance from C code. Plus gcc is probably smarter about instruction ordering than I. > also, the altivec.h stuff will work only with gcc I think, > so the portability problem just shifts somewhere else. but > it does look useful when you just want to inline parts of a > function. Good point; however, does anybody use a non-gcc compiler for PPC? > since it is going to take me a while to sort this out, and since > we need to get a release out to fix the sonames problem, I have > disabled PPC asm functions for now and will get back to it after > the release. the static binaries I make for the darwin binary > release will have them though, because it's easy for me to > compile the right one. That sounds prudent. I don't think it would hurt to have a configure option to enable it though. -- Brady Patterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) RLRR LRLL RLLR LRRL RRLR LLRL _______________________________________________ Flac-dev mailing list Flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
