From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1827 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2013 22:35:07 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 1814 invoked by uid 89); 10 Sep 2013 22:35:07 -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; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 22:35:07 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.6 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-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8AMZ3nS010269 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:35:03 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.159] (ovpn-113-159.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.159]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r8AMZ1eL027421; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:35:02 -0400 Message-ID: <522F9E95.9030205@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 22:35:00 -0000 From: "Carlos O'Donell" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Ellcey CC: libc-ports@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch, mips] Improved memset for MIPS References: <93a232b5-9d0b-4a27-bbb5-16e3ae7c4b89@BAMAIL02.ba.imgtec.org> <522957A4.2030400@redhat.com> <1378483403.5770.307.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> <522A0CF8.8040008@redhat.com> <1378510388.5770.346.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> <522A9197.9000601@redhat.com> <1378844980.5770.378.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> <522F88A6.1000904@redhat.com> <1378847551.5770.384.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> In-Reply-To: <1378847551.5770.384.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2 On 09/10/2013 05:12 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote: > On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 17:01 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > >>> Now that I can see the results of 'make bench' I do have a question, >>> what is the difference between the results in bench-memset.out and >>> bench-memset-ifunc.out? MIPS doesn't yet support IFUNC. It looks like >>> the results in the two files are pretty close, so maybe they are >>> identical runs on machines with no IFUNC? >> >> You get the default implementation of __libc_ifunc_impl_list (the function >> used by the testing infrastructure to iterate the functions implemented >> as ifuncs) which adds no additional functions to the test list. You still >> test the usual defaults e.g. simple, builtin, and original function entry. >> Therefore it's the same as the non-IFUNC version with the results being >> the same modulo testing variance. >> >> Does that answer your question? > > I think so, but just to be clear: If I did have IFUNC and 4 different > implementations of memset (for example), would the testing > infrastructure run and benchmark all 4 versions of memset? Yes. Cheers, Carlos.