From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758059AbYCEF0b (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 00:26:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752098AbYCEF0V (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 00:26:21 -0500 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:39050 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752091AbYCEF0V (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 00:26:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <18382.7074.69060.661720@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <1204301097.14759.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1204340690.15052.457.camel@pasglop> <18382.7074.69060.661720@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, LKML , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Steven Rostedt From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] add strncmp to PowerPC Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 06:26:06 +0100 To: Paul Mackerras X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.623) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Do we have any indication that it performs better than the C one ? > > I would expect it to, given that the assembler one has two branches in > the per-byte loop compared to 3 in the C version. But really, does it matter for strncmp() in the kernel? Anyway, this asm code has bugs, as do both the current C version in the kernel, and the code I posted. We need to do better :-) Segher