[OpenBIOS] Re: Paflof update
segher at chello.nl
Sun Jun 30 13:58:49 CEST 2002
> > Most probably it's worth the effort. Not too much effort, either:
> > MOVE --> memmove()
> > MOVE> --> memcpy()
> which just moves the implementation down a layer and speeds things up
> for host execution. If we want to get this thing to flash we have to do
> it ourselfes anyways, no matter whether we write it in forth or use a
> C/asm optimized memmove/memcpy
Ah, c'mon. You can link against some libraries and get memmove() et. al.
for free, even when doing embedded work. This problem has been solved so
many times already that there are lots of good, free, implementations
> > Graphics drivers need to be (partly) written in C or asm anyway (esp. the
> > "blitter" parts), so as not too make the system feel sluggish.
> Which was the reason why i proposed C written unaligned words.
Optimized blitters won't use unaligned accesses anyway (except for some
boundary cases, maybe).
> The "problem" is that it takes paflof about 1.2secs per package on a
> 667MHz 21264 to initialize this table. Not really fatal, but I still
> want to see that compressed dictionary dumps are smaller than fcode
> drivers before I consider them the universal solution.
Just wait and see, I guess...
To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at freiburg.linux.de
with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
http://www.freiburg.linux.de/OpenBIOS/ - free your system..
More information about the openbios