Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> So, Ok, I will try to do something for x86 (either reduce the numbers of
>> registers used by the C code, or reduce the assembly to the bare
>> minimum). But, please, pick my generic implementation of llmulshft, it
>> was carefully written.
> Yes, it is the better choice for 32 bit archs (my previous tests didn't
> reflect the usage in Xenomai truely, redoing them made my generic
> version fall behind yours). Will include it.

Done, see -v6. Then I added that two-liner for x86_64 rthal_llmulshft,
fixed the BITS_PER_LONG bug, and enabled generic-based support for ARM
(testing welcome!).

At this chance: My series now also includes rthal_llimd for x86_64,
another two-liner.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to