Hi James,
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:03:07AM -0600, James Yang wrote:
[snipped]
> > Ok, if you have measured that method1 is faster than method2, let us go for
> > it.
> > I believe method2 would be faster if you had a large out-of-order execution
> > window, because more parallelism can
e:
> > > > Gabriel Paubert wrote on 02/06/2014 07:26:37 PM:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Gabriel Paubert
> > > > > To: Stephen N Chivers
> > > > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Chris Proctor
> > > > > Date:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014, Stephen N Chivers wrote:
> James Yang wrote on 02/08/2014 07:49:40 AM:
>
> > From: James Yang
> > To: Gabriel Paubert
> > Cc: Stephen N Chivers , Chris Proctor
> > ,
> > Date: 02/08/2014 07:49 AM
> > Subject: Re: arch
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:32:18PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > I disagree, perhaps mostly because the compiler is not clever enough, but
> > right
> > now the code for solution 1 is (actually I have rewritten the code
> > and it reads:
> >
> > mask = (FM & 1)
> > | ((FM
> I disagree, perhaps mostly because the compiler is not clever enough, but
> right
> now the code for solution 1 is (actually I have rewritten the code
> and it reads:
>
> mask = (FM & 1)
> | ((FM << 3) & 0x10)
> | ((FM << 6) & 0x100)
>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:17:38AM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > However, your other solutions are better.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mask = (FM & 1);
> > > > > > mask |= (FM << 3) & 0x10;
> > > > > > mask |= (FM << 6) & 0x100;
> > > > > > mask |= (FM << 9) & 0x1000;
> > > > > > mask |=
> > However, your other solutions are better.
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > mask = (FM & 1);
> > > > > mask |= (FM << 3) & 0x10;
> > > > > mask |= (FM << 6) & 0x100;
> > > > > mask |= (FM << 9) & 0x1000;
> > > > > mask |= (FM << 12) & 0x1;
> > > > > mask |= (FM << 15) & 0x10;
> > > > > mask |
; > >
> > > > From: Gabriel Paubert
> > > > To: Stephen N Chivers
> > > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Chris Proctor
> > > > Date: 02/06/2014 07:26 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: arch/powerpc/math-emu/mtfsf.
James Yang wrote on 02/08/2014 07:49:40 AM:
> From: James Yang
> To: Gabriel Paubert
> Cc: Stephen N Chivers , Chris Proctor
> ,
> Date: 02/08/2014 07:49 AM
> Subject: Re: arch/powerpc/math-emu/mtfsf.c - incorrect mask?
>
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Gabriel Paubert wro
> > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Chris Proctor
> > > Date: 02/06/2014 07:26 PM
> > > Subject: Re: arch/powerpc/math-emu/mtfsf.c - incorrect mask?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:09:00PM +1000, Stephen N Chivers wrote:
/2014 07:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: arch/powerpc/math-emu/mtfsf.c - incorrect mask?
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:09:00PM +1000, Stephen N Chivers wrote:
> > > I have a MPC8548e based board and an application that makes
> > > extensive use of floating point inclu
Gabriel Paubert wrote on 02/06/2014 07:26:37 PM:
> From: Gabriel Paubert
> To: Stephen N Chivers
> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Chris Proctor
> Date: 02/06/2014 07:26 PM
> Subject: Re: arch/powerpc/math-emu/mtfsf.c - incorrect mask?
>
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:0
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:09:00PM +1000, Stephen N Chivers wrote:
> I have a MPC8548e based board and an application that makes
> extensive use of floating point including numerous calls to cos.
> In the same program there is the use of an sqlite database.
>
> The kernel is derived from 2.6.31 an
13 matches
Mail list logo
