On 16.09.2013 17:50, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/16/2013 02:16 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote: >> I agree in general with the approach "lets see if it is more convenient to >> start with MOVN". >> The existing implementation is, although not easy, leaner. >> Can we make it a little this one a little bit leaner? > > This sentence is not well formed. What did you mean? > > In what sense did you mean "lean"? Smaller or faster? > If faster, see the comment about using neon insns. > If smaller... um... why?
I am not suggesting implementing the neon insns based thing. I am suggesting looking at ways to reduce the size and complexity of the code needed to implement the same thing you just posted. If you don't see the why, there is probably little I can say to change that.
