From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-ports-return-4389-listarch-libc-ports=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 22323 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2013 17:38:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-ports.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-ports-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-ports@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-ports-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 22309 invoked by uid 89); 30 Aug 2013 17:38:50 -0000
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:38:50 +0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7UHclY9010111	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);	Fri, 30 Aug 2013 13:38:47 -0400
Received: from [10.3.113.180] (ovpn-113-180.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.180])	by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7UHckp6000700;	Fri, 30 Aug 2013 13:38:46 -0400
Message-ID: <5220D8A6.3060507@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:38:00 -0000
From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Will Newton <will.newton@linaro.org>
CC: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>,        "libc-ports@sourceware.org" <libc-ports@sourceware.org>,        Patch Tracking <patches@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysdeps/arm/armv6t2/strlen.S: strlen implementation for armv6t2.
References: <52089516.3080304@linaro.org>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1308300012560.1487@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CANu=DmjLyGRdmvPABiDJMuPM4YyH=p8QrpvNgQpNiH3-LqXOkg@mail.gmail.com> <5220D827.50800@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5220D827.50800@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2

On 08/30/2013 01:36 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 08/30/2013 05:06 AM, Will Newton wrote:
>> On 30 August 2013 01:13, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2013, Will Newton wrote:
>>>
>>>> This implementation of strlen is faster than the armv6 version for
>>>> all string lengths greater than 1 on a Cortex-A15.
>>>>
>>>> ports/ChangeLog.arm:
>>>>
>>>> 2013-08-09  Will Newton  <will.newton@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>>       * sysdeps/arm/armv6t2/strlen.S: New file.
>>>
>>> OK, presuming you've run the full glibc testsuite with this version used.
>>
>> Yes, testsuite is clean. Committed.
> 
> I'm not happy seeing these kinds of patches go in without some
> kind of numbers around "faster" and a reproducible way to get
> those numbers.

I don't say this because I'm just cranky, I want all of us to be
more accountable when it comes to the engineering rigour required
for performance patches. That way I can look back at these numbers
when users report issues with the speed of strlen on A15.

Cheers,
Carlos.