From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rkerur@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com (mail-pa0-f54.google.com
 [209.85.220.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677B5C2FE
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 23:26:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by pacyx8 with SMTP id yx8so25621174pac.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
 bh=DbKEledRQnODfVcbfCdLk5L66WeLYrLbbDopuXBvMD8=;
 b=dKi+FdRwU31etlf4kS7Y1x68+Ym0sZmqcNylcd4Yad/q8WqWcX4GXdbWtnE/C4JD6O
 H14gZnbcfnYeN0134cVQnt+X2QbW2QddviFUF2ATP2ZpQvvV8WvgeEFlaxv1PA3A40Ei
 i7gkahC6g6PLYcx9m69uFVT62VrJPWMzjUfSUI3jJJ8VYjfCNjTdb62qk/LOARYVrlKV
 RgyW88CPHeYVwNbw+8usGxyn6L+aKlhNlJ3Xncr937O5fIlzbon1+OK3TngAt0tJLPaL
 zvVZVceuh6SVqlqb5oja319+bnT1M/siTWUwqcmPq/+kqqumUblQYHqKAQvxLFORQpHW
 SCUg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.90.132 with SMTP id bw4mr39572171pbb.102.1429046759520;
 Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.123.2 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:25:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFb4SLBKSbXLEyJS_WpKVrptq8bA84OFaZNvCbYNFb9bX9z3yg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ravi Kerur <rkerur@gmail.com>
To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: [dpdk-dev] rte_memcpy.h
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:26:00 -0000

DPDK team,

I am looking at rte_memcpy.h implementation and I wasn't sure whether
coding in that file is done for any specific reason. I see superfluous type
casting in functions and instead of using loop for offset changes during
copy, separate invocation (same function) is done repeatedly.

I modified the code to remove unnecessary type casting and used loop for
offset changes. I compared the code generated by gcc (4.8.2) and in both
cases it looked same. In addition, "make test" for memcpy performance gave
similar results. I will send out a patch so you can check the changes I did
and let me know if it is good to make those changes.

Thanks,
Ravi