Return-Path: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:26:48 -0700 From: "Brad Midgley" To: "BlueZ development" In-Reply-To: <1201715271.6218.106.camel@violet> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50282bd30801290946l359dc7a6j29bb3b891ab35f9a@mail.gmail.com> <1201715271.6218.106.camel@violet> Subject: Re: [Bluez-devel] ARM optimization Reply-To: BlueZ development List-Id: BlueZ development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: bluez-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: bluez-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Marcel The other macros are not being used and I had intended to remove them. We use only MUL/MULA. > My idea would be to keep the semantic of MULA and only make it a two > stage thing. In case of no assembler we still use MULA as it is right > now, but in case of assembler it calls MULA_ARM which will do the > calculations and then the assignment. Will this work? Is the compiler > smart enough to optimize the code properly. I don't know how to do this but maybe Cidorvan can see it. -- Brad ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bluez-devel mailing list Bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel