Re: ARM optimization

Hi Brad,

> Cidorvan has a new proposal. It shifts MUL/MULA around so the
> assignment happens outside the macro. The good news is the assembly is
> now limited to a single ifdef around the macro definition. If we had
> to define eg MIPS code or something specialized it would be relatively
> quick & clean.
> 
> The tricky part is he nests the use of the macro. I'll show you how he
> formatted it. Formatting it in a traditional way will get messy
> quickly unfortunately.

this is tricky since the semantic of the other macros is different.
Having to separate semantics is a bad things. So changing the semantic
of MULA is a bad idea.

My idea would be to keep the semantic of MULA and only make it a two
stage thing. In case of no assembler we still use MULA as it is right
now, but in case of assembler it calls MULA_ARM which will do the
calculations and then the assignment. Will this work? Is the compiler
smart enough to optimize the code properly.

Regards

Marcel



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/