On 8/29/19 6:34 AM, Stefan Brankovic wrote:
> Then I run my performance tests and I got following results(test is calling
> vpkpx 10 times):
>
> 1) Current helper implementation: ~ 157 ms
>
> 2) helper implementation you suggested: ~94 ms
>
> 3) tcg implementation: ~75 ms
I assume you
On 27.8.19. 20:52, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 8/27/19 2:37 AM, Stefan Brankovic wrote:
+for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
+switch (i) {
+case 0:
+/*
+ * Get high doubleword of vA to perfrom 6-5-5 pack of pixels
+ * 1 and 2.
+ */
+
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 8/27/19 2:37 AM, Stefan Brankovic wrote:
+for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
+switch (i) {
+case 0:
+/*
+ * Get high doubleword of vA to perfrom 6-5-5 pack of pixels
+ * 1 and 2.
+ */
+
On 8/27/19 2:37 AM, Stefan Brankovic wrote:
> +for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> +switch (i) {
> +case 0:
> +/*
> + * Get high doubleword of vA to perfrom 6-5-5 pack of pixels
> + * 1 and 2.
> + */
> +get_avr64(avr, VA,
Optimize altivec instruction vpkpx (Vector Pack Pixel).
Rearranges 8 pixels coded in 6-5-5 pattern (4 from each source register)
into contigous array of bits in the destination register.
In each iteration of outer loop, the instruction is to be done with
the 6-5-5 pack for 2 pixels of each
