<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">Hi David, Thanks for your reply. I have tried running the code many times over but the range of the time taken remains the same. For measuring time I have also checked with clock_gettime which also suggests the same result.   I am not sure if replacing for loop by orcc generated C function is the best way to get optimization and this is where I need some help. If that is not the case should I then go to intrinsics? Thanks Prateek Mathur --- On Wed, 1/5/11, David Schleef <ds@entropywave.com> wrote: <blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> From: David Schleef <ds@entropywave.com> Subject: Re: [Liboil] Fw: ORC performance for NEON To: "Prateek Mathur" <hiprateek007@yahoo.co.in> Cc: liboil@lists.freedesktop.org Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 3:05 AM <div class="plainMail">On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:28:37PM +0530, Prateek Mathur wrote: > Now when I run the ORC binary with ORC_DEBUG=3 I get the statement "compiling for target "neon" " which makes me beleive that ORC is working for correct platform. > But when I run both the versions the normal addition is working much better (more than 100 times better) than the ORC code. It looks like you are running the code once.  First of all, any performance measurements should be done many times with an accurate time counter (gettimeofday() is not).  Also, the first time you run an orc function, it will compile the code, which generally slower than running the resulting code. David </div></blockquote></td></tr></table>