On Friday 18 January 2013 07:51 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 18 January 2013, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> TBD: do_csum still needs to be written in asm
> Do you actually expect a lot of improvement in do_csum?
> I would hope that gcc can actually generate a pretty
> good version of it, unless
On Friday 18 January 2013, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> TBD: do_csum still needs to be written in asm
Do you actually expect a lot of improvement in do_csum?
I would hope that gcc can actually generate a pretty
good version of it, unless you have some 64-bit add-with-carry
instruction or something else
TBD: do_csum still needs to be written in asm
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta
---
arch/arc/include/asm/byteorder.h | 18 +++
arch/arc/include/asm/checksum.h | 101 ++
arch/arc/include/asm/swab.h | 98
3 files
TBD: do_csum still needs to be written in asm
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta vgu...@synopsys.com
---
arch/arc/include/asm/byteorder.h | 18 +++
arch/arc/include/asm/checksum.h | 101 ++
arch/arc/include/asm/swab.h | 98
On Friday 18 January 2013, Vineet Gupta wrote:
TBD: do_csum still needs to be written in asm
Do you actually expect a lot of improvement in do_csum?
I would hope that gcc can actually generate a pretty
good version of it, unless you have some 64-bit add-with-carry
instruction or something else
On Friday 18 January 2013 07:51 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 18 January 2013, Vineet Gupta wrote:
TBD: do_csum still needs to be written in asm
Do you actually expect a lot of improvement in do_csum?
I would hope that gcc can actually generate a pretty
good version of it, unless you
6 matches
Mail list logo
