[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 19:36:39 +0300
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
Subject: [PATCH] math: move x86_64 fabs, fabsf to C with inline asm
---
Questions:
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.
