Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|
Looks like some compiler versions are producing wrong code when we are
copying 9-16 bytes so reverting back to the original code.
Change-Id: I74b5fa54a3b01f6288648f1cb0926030edd3b26f
Signed-off-by: Damjan Marion <damarion@cisco.com>
|
|
In the case where n is a constant 16 bytes, the second load/store is
ignored by the load/store unit - it has neglible/zero cost. In the case
where n is variable and greater than 512 bytes, the extra if (n == 16)
branch has a very small performance impact.
Change-Id: I04b313cf022c18fee31b1d9bcf6a128414659a99
Signed-off-by: Ray Kinsella <ray.kinsella@intel.com>
|
|
Current code wos copying same data twice when length is 16.
Change-Id: I8d935b32f61672aaea9789c097a5083ae8f78cdd
Signed-off-by: Damjan Marion <damarion@cisco.com>
|
|
Change-Id: I7b51f88292e057c6443b12224486f2d0c9f8ae23
Signed-off-by: Damjan Marion <damarion@cisco.com>
|