On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:17:07 +0100
David Hunt <david.hunt at intel.com> wrote:

> +                  "LDP q0, q1, [%0 , #192]\n\t"
> +                  "STP q0, q1, [%1 , #192]\n\t"
> +                  "LDP q0, q1, [%0 , #224]\n\t"
> +                  "STP q0, q1, [%1 , #224]\n\t"
> +                  : : "r" (src), "r" (dst) :
> +     );
> +}
> +/*
> +static inline void
> +     rte_mov16(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src) { memcpy(dst, src, 16); }
> +static inline void
> +     rte_mov32(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src) { memcpy(dst, src, 32); }
> +static inline void
> +     rte_mov64(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src) { memcpy(dst, src, 64); }
> +static inline void
> +     rte_mov128(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src) { memcpy(dst, src, 128); }
> +static inline void
> +     rte_mov256(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src) { memcpy(dst, src, 256); }
> +static inline void
> +     rte_mov48(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src) { memcpy(dst, src, 48); }
> +*/

I think, as this is commented out, it should be omitted from the patch.

Jan

> +#define rte_memcpy(dst, src, n)              \
> +     ({ (__builtin_constant_p(n)) ?       \
> +     memcpy((dst), (src), (n)) :          \
> +     rte_memcpy_func((dst), (src), (n)); })
> +
> +


-- 
   Jan Viktorin                  E-mail: Viktorin at RehiveTech.com
   System Architect              Web:    www.RehiveTech.com
   RehiveTech
   Brno, Czech Republic

Reply via email to