On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 8:41 PM Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com>
wrote:
>
> > From: David Christensen [mailto:d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> > Assume that fallback to the standard temporal memcpy is an acceptable
> > implementation when not supported by the architecture, yes?
>
> Yes, that is exactly what I envisioned.
>
> Furthermore, stores unaligned to a degree not supported by the architecture,
> will also use temporal mempcy - at least for the unaligned first and last
> part of the copy. The middle (aligned) part may use non-temporal copy.
>
To clarify, would you envision implementation in the arch-specific
headers + generic fallback or a shared one (generic unaligned + call
to aligned arch-specific)? First one seems more lean.
RISC-V will definitely use generic implementation as non-temporal
load/store hints are still not ratified.
--
Best Regards,
Stanisław Kardach
