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