linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] Optimize swab operations on mips_r2 cpu

To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Optimize swab operations on mips_r2 cpu
From: Franck <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:31:21 +0100
Cc: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>, Nigel Stephens <nigel@mips.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=krXtCR7QgW5t/iL8YoaLjtYDRlMTcnsCDWOBpZEVNqw+ifpBilp1E8l/ol7EatcUXjvSFQ1j6Edy28ADX59uHmcdVvxsV91+LRf+mS6YXzP62sS3lPSgmE7lxBytg2Iypl/ZvCs4fM+P58ddQMCnlGG4dTgRxED4xi34VehpaVM=
In-reply-to: <20060129150747.GC3420@linux-mips.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <43D8F000.9010106@mips.com> <43D8FF16.40107@mips.com> <cda58cb80601261002w6eb02249k@mail.gmail.com> <43D93025.9040800@mips.com> <cda58cb80601270103t1419117cq@mail.gmail.com> <43DA240F.5070301@mips.com> <cda58cb80601270654jf779622w@mail.gmail.com> <00df01c62357$ef9a1fa0$10eca8c0@grendel> <cda58cb80601270932x323e4923j@mail.gmail.com> <20060129150747.GC3420@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
2006/1/29, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 06:32:15PM +0100, Franck wrote:
>
> > > ifdef CONFIG_CPU_SMARTMIPS
> > > cflags-$(CONFIG_CPU_MIPS32R1)   += \
> > >                         $(call 
> > > set_gccflags,mips32,smartmips,4kec,mips3,mips2)\
> > >                         -Os, -Wa,--trap
>
> -Os has no business here.  That's what CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE is for.
>
> > > if the values I threw in for the MIPS32R1+SmartMIPS (e.g. 4KSc) 
> > > combination
> > > would actually work.  I just want to point out that it isn't that hard to 
> > > do.
> >
> > I agree it's not hard to do. But it becomes more tricky if you want
> > something clean that gives best results for every cpus...Moreover I
> > don't think your solution avoids maintenence problems IMHO.
> >
> > Ralf, could you give your opinion ?
>
> I think I'm going to start by throwing the insane option selection
> complexity which was needed for support of gcc 2.95 ... 3.1; a few days
> gcc 3.2 became the minimum required to build a 2.6 kernel, then see what
> can nicely be implemented.

Could you keep me informed on this ? When are you planning to start it ?

Thanks
--
               Franck

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>