At Sat, 2 Apr 2005 10:31:32 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 03:44:22PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > However it just changes HWCAP value - so we need to make ld.so to > > search library path using some library search path modifying > > environment variable (ex: LD_LIBRARY_PATH). > > No, this will be fucking slow, thats why my proposal only uses them with > entries in the cache file.
Could you explain me why it'll be too slow? > > I think the simple shell script wrapper controlling HWCAP_MASK can > > achieve the original request by Bastian. > > No, it does not. You have to replace any binary with this wrapper, even > /sbin/init. Hmm, I have not understood why you want to use such mechanism. What's the merit of your proposal? Which application are you focusing in this proposal? > > Sometimes speed-crazy developers want to > > play with optimized libraries only changing gcc optimized options. > > SSE gains between 50 and 70% in this case, don't call that speed-crazy. > > > So we should be care to enable SSE everytime as well. > > You have to ask the kernel/cpu for available SSE support. BTW, I expect you to read my point - if you have experience to modify the code for specific architecture's capability to get performance improvement like HPC application, you would nod some parts of my previous mail. Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
