Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH 11/12] add benchmarks for memcpy (RtlCopyMemory) vs fast - fast is slower

2014-05-04 Thread Alon Levy
On 05/02/2014 02:21 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> Two benchmarks: >> 1. standalone, actually uses LIBCMT's memcpy to compare. >> 2. Part of qxldd.dll (in display/res.c called from display/driver.c) >> so using the same implementation. >> >> Note: next commit r

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH 11/12] add benchmarks for memcpy (RtlCopyMemory) vs fast - fast is slower

2014-05-02 Thread Marc-André Lureau
- Original Message - > Two benchmarks: > 1. standalone, actually uses LIBCMT's memcpy to compare. > 2. Part of qxldd.dll (in display/res.c called from display/driver.c) > so using the same implementation. > > Note: next commit removes benchmark code as well as fast_memcpy_* code > and re

[Spice-devel] [PATCH 11/12] add benchmarks for memcpy (RtlCopyMemory) vs fast - fast is slower

2014-04-30 Thread Alon Levy
Two benchmarks: 1. standalone, actually uses LIBCMT's memcpy to compare. 2. Part of qxldd.dll (in display/res.c called from display/driver.c) so using the same implementation. Note: next commit removes benchmark code as well as fast_memcpy_* code and related SSE check and FPU save/restore. Result