From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 3 14:09:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD1B16A4C9; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 14:09:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA44343D5E; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 14:09:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from [131.106.58.208] (72-255-64-171.client.stsn.net [72.255.64.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k53E9Eng006218; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 10:09:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 10:09:03 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <200606022121.20535.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <200606022121.20535.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200606031009.04640.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.87.1/1510/Sat Jun 3 08:07:20 2006 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: Mikhail Teterin Subject: Re: Assembler optimizations for libz X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 14:09:35 -0000 On Friday 02 June 2006 21:21, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > Hello? Is not anyone interested? > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/96393 > > The PR has only i386 code (from libz's contrib/ subdirectory), but since > filing it, I have already made an amd64 implementation too, with very nice > speed gains (like 30-40%). > > Does anyone care to try and commit to current for starters? I think lots of people are busy. :) I glanced at it and still have it on my todo list, but have many things on said list. Can you expand on the problem you have with inffast.S? Also, it might read better if the flow of the Makefile is: .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} = "i386" . if ${CPUTYPE:Mpentium*} . if ${CPUTYPE} == "pentium" || .. .PATH: . else .PATH: . endif SRCS+= match.S CFLAGS+= ... . endif SRCS+= inffast.S CFLAGS+= ... .PATH: ... . if ${CPUTYPE} == "pentium-mmx" CFLAGS+= ... . endif .else SRCS+= inffast.c .endif That is, merge the two i386 sections into one section. -- John Baldwin