The larger footprint is certainly a reasonable explanation for a slow down.
Are those figures for local processing (i.e., introsepection), or from an external process? What do you mean by `apply the patch, but diable it by default'? Does that mean that a compile time switch or a runtime switch? Ariel == On Sat 18 Jun 20:49, Arun Sharma wrote: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Lassi Tuura <l...@cern.ch> wrote: > > Compared to current head, I see consistent slightly over 5% slow-down with > > the patch > > in our memory profiler, using the same test I used previously. The 387M > > stack walks > > in ~960 secs become about ~1011 seconds with the patch. I don't think there > > are any > > ms_abi frames. > > Thanks for testing. Probably the effect of a bigger dcache footprint. > I'm inclined to apply the patch, but disable it by default. > > > > > Under what conditions would ms_abi support / preserving SSE register state > > be enabled? > > The matches I found in google codesearch were basically cygwin, wine and > > some EFI code. > > Ariel? > > -Arun _______________________________________________ Libunwind-devel mailing list Libunwind-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libunwind-devel
