VisualBoyAdvance-M

gba-thumb.cpp @l1587:

// LDR Rd, [Rs, #Imm]
static INSN_REGPARM void thumb68(u32 opcode)

{

if (busPrefetchCount == 0)

Code: Select all

busPrefetch = busPrefetchEnable;

u32 address = reg[(opcode>>3)&7].I + b<<2)[/b];

reg[opcode&7].I = CPUReadMemory(address);

clockTicks = 3 + dataTicksAccess32(address) + codeTicksAccess16(armNextPC);

}

Couldn't the highlighted block be optimized by replacing it with

code[/code]

 

 

There are several cases like this around that area.

I'll give it a try and see what happens [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/smile.png[/img]/emoticons/smile@2x.png 2x" width="20" height="20" />

ok tried

u32 address = reg[(opcode>>3)&7].I + (((opcode>>4)&124)<<2); and it didn't work (I know not what you said to try)

so then I tried

u32 address = reg[(opcode>>3)&7].I + (((opcode>>4)&124); compile didn't work since it was missing a bracket (that was kind of your fault for not giving the extra bracket [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/tongue.png[/img]/emoticons/tongue@2x.png 2x" width="20" height="20" />)

once the extra bracket was added it worked again

u32 address = reg[(opcode>>3)&7].I + (((opcode>>4)&124));

and it was fairly optimized [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/smile.png[/img]/emoticons/smile@2x.png 2x" width="20" height="20" />

My replacement should be perfectly fine [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/huh.png[/img]/emoticons/huh@2x.png 2x" width="20" height="20" />

 

u32 address = reg[(opcode>>3)&7].I + b)[/b];

 

Do you seriously want to tell me there have to be two brackets???

:blah!:

 

It would be interesting to see the actual speed differences, if all of those similar code pieces were edited like that.

well I was tired and didn't notice >_< I didn't have my coffee at all but yeah I say let's do this as an experiment first before submitting it to svn and if the others like it then submit it

It would be cool if some binary junky can tell me if the expression (((opcode>>6)&31)<<2) always gives the same results as ((opcode>>4)&124). I only had some basic binary term transformation in school ^^. I really don't want to introduce bugs like I did before I took a break [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/laugh.png[/img]/emoticons/laugh@2x.png 2x" width="20" height="20" />

It would be cool if some binary junky can tell me if the expression (((opcode>>6)&31)<<2) always gives the same results as ((opcode>>4)&124). I only had some basic binary term transformation in school ^^. I really don't want to introduce bugs like I did before I took a break [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/laugh.png[/img]/emoticons/laugh@2x.png 2x" width="20" height="20" />

The two expressions are the same. But it doesn't make a difference for the release build because the compiler already optimizes it.

Is there any proof that the compiler optimizes that? Hm, maybe it's possible to look at the assembler code the compiler produced.

I compared the executables.

OK, good to know, thanks.