Re: ARM optimization

Hi Cidorvan,

> > 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.

I think you didn't get my idea, but I also have no time to actually put
it into code right now. So I wanna have the semantics of all macros the
same. According to Brad, the others can be removed. If so, then I am
fine with this change.

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/