>
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.981114212737.5461A-100000@chaos.analogic.com> you wrote:
>
> > write an Intel extension to GAS or if you think my talents would
> > be better served by writing some assembly-language for some Linux-
> > kernel procedures.
>
> Probably, your talent would be better used learning to
> use nasm, since it seems to do what you want.
>
> On the code you published, I have a two points.
>
> Why don't you compare it with the gas code already in
> the Linux kernel? Since this routine has already been
> programmed in the assembler in Linux you are preaching
> to the converted, unless you can show that your version
> is faster.
The source code shows how to directly substitute the
code I wrote for the code in the kernel. I specifically
did not make a published comparison. We will probably
find that one or more of the ideas shown may be used
by the maintainer of the current kernel code.
The demonstration code was an example of how to pipeline
something that is, buy it's nature, capable of being
pipelined. It is not a fix for something that is not
broken.
>
> It is generally thought a bad idea to publish uncopyrighted
> code, because your no-warranty disclaimer can be removed by
> redistributors. But then it is also thought a bad idea to
> post as root or program large pieces of code in assembler,
> so I guess you don't care what is generally thought.
To claim no copyright at all is the way a gentleman gives
away a written work.
> > Also, check out the source, in particular the code-generator,
> > codestream.c, which generates codestream.S. There are GAS bugs
> > (features?) I had to work-around.
>
> Did you report the bugs to GNU?
Yes.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
Penguin : Linux version 2.1.127 on an i586 machine (66.15 BogoMips).
Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/