Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 16:27:49 -0400 From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Why the musl libc did not support neon simd acceleartor officially on mem* operations? On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 3:53 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 04:01:40PM +0800, tugouxp wrote: > > HI guys: > > I found that the current implmention of musl arm port memcpy.S and > > other mem*.S operations did not use arm neon instructions, this > > seems differenct with other counterparts like newlibc, glibc and > > bonic libc, which all impl. the neon version of mem* operations. so > > could you tell me why? is there and concern about on this in musl? > > if i want to imple my self imple. how to do this, is there any > > matual pathches to use? > > Generally we don't have any significant asm implementations that > depend on non-baseline extensions to the ISA. The same is true for x86 > where no sse/avx is used. Out of curiosity, does anyone use Hardware Capabilities (https://linux.die.net/man/8/ld-linux) nowadays? Something like a /usr/lib/musl, /usr/lib/sse/musl, /usr/lib/avx/musl, /usr/lib/neon/musl, etc? The benefit to using it is no runtime switching. The switching occurs at load time, not runtime. I know of a handful of libraries that could benefit from the speed up on a critical path with an arch specific implementation. But I think most libraries don't need it. Jeff
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.