Martin Storsjö <[email protected]> writes:
> Hmm, yes, I think that might have been the case. So since we can't
> rely on that being aligned anyway, we could just as well skip the 8
> byte offset.
If it works now, I don't think we should touch this code further before
release.
For later optimization (if it really makes a difference to performance
if we use aligned or unaligned loads and stores here? I don't know),
one could keep the 8 byte extra allocation, then do something like
lea 8(%rsp), %r10
and $-16, %r10
(%r10 should always be free for scratch use at both entry and exit,
right?). Then %r10 will be 16 byte aligned, and hold either %rsp or %rsp
+ 8. And we can then do fully aligned loads and stores of the xmm
registers via offsets from %r10.
Regards,
/Niels
--
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.
_______________________________________________
nettle-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
