From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17867 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2012 18:38:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 17730 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Sep 2012 18:38:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,TW_CP X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from dns1.mips.com (HELO dns1.mips.com) (12.201.5.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:38:35 +0000 Received: from mailgate1.mips.com (mailgate1.mips.com [12.201.5.111]) by dns1.mips.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8KIcWBC008018; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:38:32 -0700 X-M-MSG: Received: from exchdb01.mips.com (unknown [192.168.36.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgate1.mips.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8E636466A; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.65.53] (192.168.65.53) by exchhub01.mips.com (192.168.36.84) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.270.1; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:38:29 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize MIPS memcpy From: Steve Ellcey To: Maxim Kuvyrkov CC: Andrew T Pinski , "Joseph S. Myers" , In-Reply-To: References: <5044746c.23eb440a.75e2.618f@mx.google.com> <1346771341.14333.20.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> <596797ED-6575-456D-98FD-C13A209DBC49@mentor.com> <1346948701.14333.152.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> <1347376645.14333.319.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1348166309.6170.55.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EMS-Proccessed: 6LP3oGfGVdcdb8o1aBnt6w== X-EMS-STAMP: UZ08qAKIr6gzGuV/NNOD+g== Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-09/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 21:05 +1200, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > What testing was done for this patch, does it pass glibc testsuite? > > I have a benchmark that exercises various string and mem* routines failing with it. > > Thank you, > > -- > Maxim Kuvyrkov > CodeSourcery / Mentor Graphics Is the benchmark anything you can share? I ran the glibc testsuite and got some failures but I don't think they are due to the new memcpy. I am going back now and running the glibc testsuite with no changes to get a baseline so I can verify that. Hopefully I will have an answer later today. I ran some other tests like the gcc testsuite using a glibc with this change in it and that didn't have any problems and there is the one I sent to the list http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2012-09/msg00007.html that also ran with no problems. Steve Ellcey sellcey@mips.com