Am 02.11.2016 um 04:28 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
On 02/11/16 02:39 AM, Jochen Rollwagen wrote:
So as far as i’m concerned the last version of the patch i sent is the
final one (i’m attaching it).
Please re-send the patch you want to be applied generated by git
format-patch, ideally with your
On 02/11/16 02:39 AM, Jochen Rollwagen wrote:
>
> So as far as i’m concerned the last version of the patch i sent is the
> final one (i’m attaching it).
Please re-send the patch you want to be applied generated by git
format-patch, ideally with your Signed-off-by tag.
> On my machine I’m
Am 31.10.2016 um 19:30 schrieb Matt Turner:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Jochen Rollwagen
wrote:
Am 31.10.2016 um 07:01 schrieb Matt Turner:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Jochen Rollwagen
wrote:
Hi there,
gcc seems to create some
Am 31.10.2016 um 07:01 schrieb Matt Turner:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Jochen Rollwagen wrote:
Hi there,
gcc seems to create some sub-optimal code for the following code sequence in
radeon_accel.c:
for (; nwords > 0; --nwords, ++d, ++s)
*d = ((*s &
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Jochen Rollwagen
wrote:
> Am 31.10.2016 um 07:01 schrieb Matt Turner:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Jochen Rollwagen
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> gcc seems to create some sub-optimal code for the
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Jochen Rollwagen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> gcc seems to create some sub-optimal code for the following code sequence in
> radeon_accel.c:
>
> for (; nwords > 0; --nwords, ++d, ++s)
> *d = ((*s & 0x) << 16) | ((*s >> 16) &
Hi there,
gcc seems to create some sub-optimal code for the following code
sequence in radeon_accel.c:
for (; nwords > 0; --nwords, ++d, ++s)
*d = ((*s & 0x) << 16) | ((*s >> 16) & 0x);
the body of the loop compiles to
lwz 9,40(31)
lwz 9,0(9)
rotlwi 10,9,16