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
Hi,
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 compiled
flops.c on both 4.9
and 5.2 and the 5.2 perf
14 matches
Mail list logo
