Source-Changes archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: stmw/lmw [Was: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/powerpc/powerpc]

To: Matt Thomas <matt%3am-software.com@localhost>
Subject: Re: stmw/lmw [Was: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/powerpc/powerpc]
From: Eduardo Horvath <eeh%NetBSD.ORG@localhost>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 20:27:01 +0000

On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 06:41:30PM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:

> Actually, when I was doing my internet checksum tests, I found 
> individual loads to be *faster* (by 20-25%) than lmw/stmw.  This may be 
> why gcc doesn't emit them for saving/restoring callframes.

What processors did you run your tests on?

Eduardo

References:
- stmw/lmw [Was: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/powerpc/powerpc]
  - From: Simon Burge
- Re: stmw/lmw [Was: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/powerpc/powerpc]
  - From: Matt Thomas

Prev by Date: CVS commit: src/usr.bin/systat
Next by Date: CVS commit: src/sys/compat/mach
Previous by Thread: Re: stmw/lmw [Was: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/powerpc/powerpc]
Next by Thread: Re: stmw/lmw [Was: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/powerpc/powerpc]
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index