Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun,  5 Jan 2020 19:36:39 +0300
From: Alexander Monakov <>
Cc: Alexander Monakov <>
Subject: [PATCH] math: move x86_64 fabs, fabsf to C with inline asm



Why are there amd64-specific fabs implementations in the first place?
(Only) because GCC generated poor code for the generic C version?

Do annotations for mask manipulation in the patch help? Any way to make
them less ambiguous?

 src/math/x86_64/fabs.c  | 10 ++++++++++
 src/math/x86_64/fabs.s  |  9 ---------
 src/math/x86_64/fabsf.c | 10 ++++++++++
 src/math/x86_64/fabsf.s |  7 -------
 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 src/math/x86_64/fabs.c
 delete mode 100644 src/math/x86_64/fabs.s
 create mode 100644 src/math/x86_64/fabsf.c
 delete mode 100644 src/math/x86_64/fabsf.s

View attachment "0001-math-move-x86_64-fabs-fabsf-to-C-with-inline-asm.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1421 bytes)

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.