Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 15:17:18 +0200 From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Optimized C memcpy On 08/08/13 15:03, Andrew Bradford wrote: > Sorry, I now see why 4 byte blocks won't work due to the misalignment, > but 8 or 16 seem like they should be possible. > Is it just the evaluation of the for loop being expensive that's trying > to be avoided? Probably 32bytes uses cachelines better on average. lu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.