On 09/17/2013 12:55 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote: > On 16.09.2013 17:50, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 09/16/2013 02:16 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote: >>> I agree in general with the approach "lets see if it is more convenient to >>> start with MOVN". >>> The existing implementation is, although not easy, leaner. >>> Can we make it a little this one a little bit leaner? >> >> This sentence is not well formed. What did you mean? >> >> In what sense did you mean "lean"? Smaller or faster? >> If faster, see the comment about using neon insns. >> If smaller... um... why? > > I am not suggesting implementing the neon insns based thing. > I am suggesting looking at ways to reduce the size and complexity of the code > needed to implement the same thing you just posted. > If you don't see the why, there is probably little I can say to change that.
I interpreted you meaning akin to -Os, producing a smaller binary. I obviously wrote it in the least complex way I could think to do the job. If you can find a simpler way, feel free. r~
