Hi,
> That makes the comparison with memcpy somewhat unfair, since you
> are not actually providing replacement functions, so this would only
> make difference for -O3 type optimatisation (where you trade speed for
> size); it would be interesting to see what the performance difference is
> if you add the C prologue and epilogue.#
One should also remember that inlining functions increases the code
size. On trivial sized test programs this is not an issue, but
in real programs it is, especially with the RAM and cache sizes
that ARM has.
> BTW, you can instruct gcc to use inlined assembler version of its memcpy
> and friends as well, I think -O3 includes this, but if I read
> bits/string.h correctly in my sbox, there are no such inlined functions
> on the arm though, so there is certainly value in doing this.
AFAIK gcc will use it's own inline functions if the size is constant
(it doesn't come from the C-library then).
- Eero
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
