On Monday 16 February 2004 10:11 am, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 03:52:16AM -0800, Wes Peters wrote:
> > > Should I commit this?
> >
> > What effect does it have on non-i386 architectures?
>
> It can't possibly hurt. If the sta
On Mon, 2004/02/16 at 19:11:16 +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 03:52:16AM -0800, Wes Peters wrote:
> > > Should I commit this?
> > What effect does it have on non-i386 architectures?
>
> It can't possibly hurt. If the stack
Bruce M Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not happy with the patch as-is and would be happier if a cleaner
> MI-way of expressing this were found.
What exactly is wrong with the patch? (except for the fact that
empirical tests show it should align on a 64-byte boundary)
DES
--
Dag-Erlin
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
Some interesting finding there what if any are the impacts for
performance in real life applications?
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Dag-Erling Smørgrav" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 03:52:16AM -0800, Wes Peters wrote:
> >
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 03:52:16AM -0800, Wes Peters wrote:
> > Should I commit this?
> What effect does it have on non-i386 architectures?
It can't possibly hurt. If the stack is already aligned on a "better"
boundary (64 or 128 bytes), it is also alig
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 03:52:16AM -0800, Wes Peters wrote:
> On Sunday 15 February 2004 12:46, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
> > Alexandr Kovalenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Could you please explain me this? Result is fully reproduceable. Please
> > > note, that the only difference is the out
ECTED]
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.2 v/s FreeBSD 4.9 MFLOPS performance (gcc3.3.3 v/s
gcc2.9.5)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:24:21 +0200
Hello, Wes Peters!
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 11:29:34AM -0800, you wrote:
> On Monday 09 February 2004 13:20, Juan Tumani wrote:
> > I have an Intel D845GE m/b w/
On Sunday 15 February 2004 12:46, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Alexandr Kovalenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Could you please explain me this? Result is fully reproduceable. Please
> > note, that the only difference is the output file name. Even resulting
> > files match bit-to-bit. [...]
>
>
Alexandr Kovalenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could you please explain me this? Result is fully reproduceable. Please note,
> that the only difference is the output file name. Even resulting files match
> bit-to-bit. [...]
Definitely some kind of alignment problem, but it only shows up at
some
Hello, Wes Peters!
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 11:29:34AM -0800, you wrote:
> On Monday 09 February 2004 13:20, Juan Tumani wrote:
> > I have an Intel D845GE m/b w/ a P4 1.7 CPU and I have the box setup
> > to dual boot to either 4.9 or 5.2. Both OS are right off the latest
> > posted iso CD image,
In the last episode (Feb 10), Wes Peters said:
> On Monday 09 February 2004 13:20, Juan Tumani wrote:
> > I have an Intel D845GE m/b w/ a P4 1.7 CPU and I have the box setup
> > to dual boot to either 4.9 or 5.2. Both OS are right off the
> > latest posted iso CD image, i.e., no updates, no kernel
On Monday 09 February 2004 13:20, Juan Tumani wrote:
> I have an Intel D845GE m/b w/ a P4 1.7 CPU and I have the box setup
> to dual boot to either 4.9 or 5.2. Both OS are right off the latest
> posted iso CD image, i.e., no updates, no kernel tweaks, everything
> vanilla right out of the box. I
13 matches
Mail list logo
