[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: nasm over gas?
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:57:12PM +0800, Michael Frank wrote:
> On Thursday 04 September 2003 21:44, Yann Droneaud wrote:
> >
> > Using nasm for only one small piece of code would be a regression, imho.
> Concur, not worthwhile to start using a fairly unsupported tool in the kernel.
> As to using assembler, It is better to get rid of it but in special cases.
> Todays compilers are the better coders in 98+% of applications, and if you
> follow some of the discussions here on the list, you will be amazed what
> people do with a C compiler - all portable and much more maintainable.

The gcc optimized code for sure much better than I do, but gcc's
optimization captabilities is for sure a joke compared to the guy how wrote
2fish_86.asm (just have a look at the source). The assembler implementation
is twice as fast as the C implemention we have in the kernel. Same is true
for AES (although just 50% faster instead of 100%: . That's gas
btw. )

> I guess your code should be 80-90% C and 10-20% assmbler. This will make it
> up to 10 times a portable.

The Twofish code is C but has hooks to use an asm backend in special cases
(keysetup, en/decrypt). But a plain C version of twofish is already present
in the kernel.

> As to using nasm, note for gas and gcc 3.2+:
> + GAS does intel syntax too using the directive
> .intel_syntax

That's certainly nice to hear. At least some cut/pasting can be done :)

Regards, Clemens
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.159 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site