This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: memcpy performance regressions 2.19 -> 2.24(5)
Maybe there's room for both?
Setting the cpu_features would affect everything; it would be useful
to be able to target only specific (and very important) routines.
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:46 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Erich Elsen <eriche@google.com> wrote:
>> I was also thinking that it might be nice to have a TUNABLE that sets
>> the implementation of memcpy directly. It would be easier to do this
>> if memcpy.S was memcpy.c. Attached is a patch that does the
>> conversion but doesn't add the tunables. How would you feel about
>> this? It has no runtime impact, probably increases the size slightly,
>> and makes the code easier to read / modify.
>>
>
> It depends on how far you want to go. We can add TUNABLE support
> to each IFUNC implementation or we can add TUNABLE support to
> cpu_features to update processor features. I prefer latter.
>
>
> --
> H.J.