From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 25 17:10:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAEE016A4CE for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:10:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A2043D31 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:10:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) i9PHALR6027883 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:10:21 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i9PHALGX027882; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:10:21 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:10:21 GMT Message-Id: <200410251710.i9PHALGX027882@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org From: John-Mark Gurney Subject: Re: amd64/73111: Optimized libc string functions missing for amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: John-Mark Gurney List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:10:21 -0000 The following reply was made to PR amd64/73111; it has been noted by GNATS. From: John-Mark Gurney To: Ville-Pertti Keinonen Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: amd64/73111: Optimized libc string functions missing for amd64 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:03:20 -0700 Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote this message on Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:53 +0000: > >Description: > Using optimized assembly language versions of string functions on amd64 (this is already done on other architectures) would probably be a good idea. > > Functions adapted from NetBSD (which can be extracted into /usr/src for inclusion in a buildworld) are available at the following URL: > http://will.iki.fi/patches/libc-amd64-string.tar.gz > > I mentioned the issue on -current, but this didn't result in any discussion. > > The NetBSD functions may or may not all be desirable in their current form; some of the functions have extensive unrolling and may produce a performance penalty for short strings (but a huge advantage for longer ones). Have you run some benchmarks to validate that the assembly optimized code is faster than the c generated? if you need help analyzing the benchmark numbers, look at ministat in src/tools/tools/ministat... -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."