On 02/01/2012 02:37 PM, Christophe Gisquet wrote: > Hi, > > 2012/2/1 Ronald S. Bultje <[email protected]>: >> some of the failures we see after bswap32 was SSE'ified. > > I guess I'm responsible for those failures (assuming destination was > always aligned, while it is not guaranteed). > > This is off-topic, but if this goes through, then I suggest the following: > 1) Mention somewhere the allowed assumptions for bswap_buf; > 2) Rewrite (and in fact simplify) a bit the SSE implementation, as I > guess the padding will now allow working on batches of 4 values at a > minimum.
I don't think we can assume padding on the input in all cases currently. If it will simplify the asm, we could of course define that size is a multiple of 4 (or even 8 if needed) and check all uses to make sure they comply. -Justin _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
