Re: ARM optimization
"Cidorvan Leite" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.bluez.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi! On Jan 30, 2008 4:26 PM, Brad Midgley <[email protected]> wrote: > Marcel > > The other macros are not being used and I had intended to remove them. > We use only MUL/MULA. > > > 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. > > I don't know how to do this but maybe Cidorvan can see it. > Like you can see in my first e-mail (gcc-no-arm-optimization.txt), gcc wasn't smart enough to optimize assignments. The reason to do a macro with assembly code is to force the gcc to use the right instruction (smlal) and keep the output code clean. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/