This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] [MIPS] [Loongson] Specific integer instructions added ( H ow to test ’prefetchx‘？)

From: "Ruan Beihong" <ruanbeihong at gmail dot com>
To: "Ruan Beihong" <ruanbeihong at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, rdsandiford at googlemail dot com
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:26:10 +0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [MIPS] [Loongson] Specific integer instructions added ( H ow to test ’prefetchx‘？)
References: <b45dfd470807201900l1381a19fj87ef17d20c9a31ba@mail.gmail.com> <87wsjff6wk.fsf@firetop.home> <b45dfd470807211941k192a843re7c4d5994ab4c50a@mail.gmail.com> <87fxq1g0qh.fsf@firetop.home>

I've seen the Loongson 2F manual carefully. The (d)div(u) is
internally splited into one (d)div(u).g and one (d)mod(u).g. So I said
before was wrong. The truth is that, (d)div(u).g and (d)mod(u).g are
always faster than (d)div(u), at least the time spend on mflo/mfhi is
saved.

James Ruan

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] [MIPS] [Loongson] Specific integer instructions added ( How to test âprefetchxâï)
  - From: Richard Sandiford

References:
- [PATCH] [MIPS] [Loongson] Specific integer i nstructions added ( How to test ’prefetchx‘？)
  - From: Ruan Beihong
- Re: [PATCH] [MIPS] [Loongson] Specific integer instructions added ( How to test âprefetchxâï)
  - From: Richard Sandiford
- Re: [PATCH] [MIPS] [Loongson] Specific integer instructions added ( H ow to test ’prefetchx‘？)
  - From: Ruan Beihong
- Re: [PATCH] [MIPS] [Loongson] Specific integer instructions added ( How to test âprefetchxâï)
  - From: Richard Sandiford

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]