Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Howard Chu writes: > > > A bit of a minor mystery. Not a problem, just a curiosity. If > > someone knew off the top of their head a reason for it, that'd be > > cool, but otherwise no sweat. > > It's possible, although unlikley, that the optimized code has worse > cache behaviour. No way to know better without doing some profiling.
It's quite possible if he hits the conditional store "optimization" (that actually adds unnecessary cache misses) that was recently discussed in the load thread safety thread. -Andi
