Re: [PATCH] uboot optimize memmove

2013-07-29 Thread Will Newton
On 29 July 2013 09:44, Andy Green wrote: > Looping Will... > > On 29 July 2013 16:28, Dirk Behme wrote: >> On 26.07.2013 15:42, Andy Green wrote: >>> >>> On 26 July 2013 20:58, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> >> ... you not make sure that you provide optimized implementations for such fun

Re: [PATCH] uboot optimize memmove

2013-07-29 Thread Andy Green
Looping Will... On 29 July 2013 16:28, Dirk Behme wrote: > On 26.07.2013 15:42, Andy Green wrote: >> >> On 26 July 2013 20:58, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > ... >>> >>> you not make sure that you provide optimized implementations for such >>> functions and consequently #define __HAVE_ARCH_MEMMOVE (an

Re: [PATCH] uboot optimize memmove

2013-07-29 Thread Dirk Behme
On 26.07.2013 15:42, Andy Green wrote: On 26 July 2013 20:58, Wolfgang Denk wrote: ... you not make sure that you provide optimized implementations for such functions and consequently #define __HAVE_ARCH_MEMMOVE (and __HAVE_ARCH_MEMCPY) ? Yes I found these afterwards... performance is slight

Re: [PATCH] uboot optimize memmove

2013-07-29 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Andy Green, In message you wrote: > > Given that code should perferably never be used, maybe it should print > a warning like "Using default memory ops" and leave it like it is. > The problem is not correctness just inefficiency. Agreed. You found a problem, and a way to improve it. All t