Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 15:17:18 +0200
From: Luca Barbato <>
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.


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.