Re: [patch 1/13] Qsort

From: Matt Mackall
Date: Mon Jan 24 2005 - 16:30:05 EST


On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 05:58:00AM +0100, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2005, at 03:39, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> >Felipe Alfaro Solana <lkml@xxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >>AFAIK, XOR is quite expensive on IA32 when compared to simple MOV
> >>operatings. Also, since the original patch uses 3 MOVs to perform the
> >>swapping, and your version uses 3 XOR operations, I don't see any
> >>gains.
> >
> >Both are one cycle latency for register<->register on all x86 cores
> >I've looked at. What makes you think differently?
>
> I thought XOR was more expensie. Anyways, I still don't see any
> advantage in replacing 3 MOVs with 3 XORs.

Again, no temporaries needed.

But I benched it and it was quite a bit slower.

--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/