On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 07:11:16PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > It can't possibly hurt. If the stack is already aligned on a "better" > boundary (64 or 128 bytes), it is also aligned on a 32-byte boundary > since 64 and 128 are multiples of 32, and the patch is a no-op. If > only a 16-byte alignment is required, a 32-byte alignment wastes a > small amount of memory but does not hurt performance. I believe that > less-than-16 (and possibly even less-than-32) alignment is pessimal on > all platforms we support.
I'm not happy with the patch as-is and would be happier if a cleaner MI-way of expressing this were found. BMS _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
