> On 21 Jan 2016, at 17:16, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> -void osmo_revbytebits_buf(uint8_t *buf, int len);
> +void osmo_revbytebits_buf(uint8_t *buf, unsigned int len);
yes that makes sense but please do not mix bugfix and API
change in one (unless the API change is the bugfix). E.g.
2/3 of the change is "noise"
> @@ -221,8 +220,7 @@ void osmo_revbytebits_buf(uint8_t *buf, int len)
> }
>
> for (i = unaligned_cnt; i + 3 < len; i += 4) {
> - uint32_t *cur = (uint32_t *) (buf + i);
> - *cur = osmo_revbytebits_32(*cur);
> + osmo_store32be(osmo_revbytebits_32(osmo_load32be(buf + i)), buf
> + i);
uint32_t cur;
memcpy(&cur, buf + 1, sizeof(cur));
cur = osmo_revbytebits_32(cur);
memcpy(buf + 1, &cur, sizeof(cur));
would be my approach. So let's compare it. Your code without the loop
is here https://goo.gl/vD3kqQ and the memcpy variant is https://goo.gl/5kzTmx
now if there would be a cloud microbenchmark we could resolve that once and
for all.
