crc32() optimization

Eric W. Biederman ebiederman at
Sun Nov 10 18:56:30 EST 2002

"Joakim Tjernlund" <Joakim.Tjernlund at> writes:

> > In message <001301c28909$743f1f40$0200a8c0 at> you wrote:
> > > I could not wait until tomorrow, so I did it now instead.
> > > The result was worse. The best I got was 7% improvement.
> > > I tried 16, 8, 6 and 4 as unrolling steps.
> > 
> > Makes no sense to me.  Should  be  at  least  as  efficient  as  your
> > original code (marginally better).
> I don't understand this either.
> Anyone?

You might try it with 6.  But a lot depends on what gcc can do with
it and gcc may not be like all of those potential entry points.. 

Running gcc -S and checking to see the difference in the generated
assembly might be instructive.


More information about the linux-mtd mailing list