Pushed as-is, leaving Ben’s preference as an opportunity for future improvement.
Jarno
On Dec 6, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 04:36:26PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>> Inline, use another well-known algorithm for 64-bit builds, and use
>> builtins when they a
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 04:36:26PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> Inline, use another well-known algorithm for 64-bit builds, and use
> builtins when they are known to be fast at compile time. A 32-bit
> version of the alternate algorithm is slower than the existing
> implementation, so the old o
On Dec 6, 2013, at 7:36 AM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> How did you measure the benefit of inlining?
>
> With a standalone C program running different variants (original, inlined,
> different algorithm) over
I should mention that I linked with a st
On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 04:36:26PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>> Inline, use another well-known algorithm for 64-bit builds, and use
>> builtins when they are known to be fast at compile time. A 32-bit
>> version of the alternate algorithm is sl
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 04:36:26PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> Inline, use another well-known algorithm for 64-bit builds, and use
> builtins when they are known to be fast at compile time. A 32-bit
> version of the alternate algorithm is slower than the existing
> implementation, so the old o
Inline, use another well-known algorithm for 64-bit builds, and use
builtins when they are known to be fast at compile time. A 32-bit
version of the alternate algorithm is slower than the existing
implementation, so the old one is used for 32-bit builds. Inline
assembler would be a bit faster on
