[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1302211134160.6419@syhkavp.arg>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:40:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
To: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@...escale.com>
Cc: "Woodhouse, David" <david.woodhouse@...el.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@...ox.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] arm: use built-in byte swap function
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:29:58 -0500
> Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Kim Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:43:18 -0500
> > > Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 09:06 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > > > ... in which case there is no harm shipping a .c file and trivially
> > > > > > enforcing -O2, the rest being equal.
> > > > >
> > > > > For today's compilers, unless the wind changes.
> > > >
> > > > We'll adapt if necessary. Going with -O2 should remain pretty safe anyway.
> > >
> > > Alas, not so for gcc 4.4 - I had forgotten I had tested
> > > Ubuntu/Linaro 4.4.7-1ubuntu2 here:
> > >
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2101491/
> > >
> > > add -O2 to that test script and gcc 4.4 *always* emits calls to
> > > __bswap[sd]i2, even with -march=armv6k+.
>
> argh, sorry - that script was testing support for
> __builtin_bswap{16,32,64} directly, which isn't the same as testing
> code generation of a byte swap pattern in C.
Still, I'm not as confident as I was about this.
> I'll still try the assembly approach - gcc 4.4's armv6 output looks
> worse than both the pre-armv6 and post-armv6 __arch_swab32
> implementations currently in use:
>
> mov ip, sp
> push {fp, ip, lr, pc}
> sub fp, ip, #4
You should use -fomit-frame-pointer to compile this. We don't need a
frame pointer here, especially for a leaf function that the compiler
decides to call on its own.
> and r2, r0, #65280 ; 0xff00
> lsl ip, r0, #24
> orr r1, ip, r0, lsr #24
> and r0, r0, #16711680 ; 0xff0000
> orr r3, r1, r2, lsl #8
> orr r0, r3, r0, lsr #8
Other than that, it is true that the above is slightly suboptimal.
Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists