On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:36:11 -0800 Terry Lambert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > Well, if Linux aligns the initial stack, the chance that gcc will
> > > have auto-alignment added sounds to be about zero. You might as
> > > well go ahead with your patch when you get a c
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020205 12:09] wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > > > foo:
> > > > pushl %ebp
> > > > movl %esp,%ebp
> > > > subl $8,%es
* Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020205 12:28] wrote:
>
> I've been forced to add -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 to critical code
> in certain projects to get rid of the crap GCC adds to the assembly.
>
> I don't mind if GCC aligns the stack for routines that actually need
> i
:> >
:> > What disgusting code. I find it amazing that they didn't even stick in
:> > some peephole optimizer to at least limit it to one operation.
:>
:> It's clearly the result of work in progress :-).
:
:I see really cruddy stuff like this every time i do a gcc -S, don't
:they watch for and t
* Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020205 12:09] wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > > foo:
> > > pushl %ebp
> > > movl %esp,%ebp
> > > subl $8,%esp# <- extra instruction for alignment (for foo)
> > > addl $-12,%
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > foo:
> > pushl %ebp
> > movl %esp,%ebp
> > subl $8,%esp# <- extra instruction for alignment (for foo)
> > addl $-12,%esp # <- extra instruction for alignment (for f1)
>
> W
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > > I haven't done anything to clean up the patch. I hope the problem
> > > will go away in future versions of gcc (align the stack at runtime in
> > > the few rout
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Nik Clayton wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 05:01:29PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > My patch is not suitable for committing verbatim. It has 2 or 3 XXX's.
>
> Do you make these patches available anywhere, so that other people can
> look over them and maybe help you on the X
Bruce,
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 05:01:29PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> My patch is not suitable for committing verbatim. It has 2 or 3 XXX's.
Do you make these patches available anywhere, so that other people can
look over them and maybe help you on the XXX'd sections?
N
--
FreeBSD: The Power
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > I haven't done anything to clean up the patch. I hope the problem
> > will go away in future versions of gcc (align the stack at runtime in
> > the few routines that actually need it).
>
> Well, if Linux alig
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > Well, if Linux aligns the initial stack, the chance that gcc will have
> > auto-alignment added sounds to be about zero. You might as well go ahead
> > with your patch when you get a chance.
>
> I agree, either way we should try to optimized the current situation,
> e
* Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020204 10:04] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Michal Mertl wrote:
> >
> > > Did you look at the patch by Bruce at
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freebsd-current/message/39605 ?
> > >
> > > Bruce, is it still
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Michal Mertl wrote:
>
> > Did you look at the patch by Bruce at
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freebsd-current/message/39605 ?
> >
> > Bruce, is it still fresh in your memory? Can you comment on the patch -
> > can it be commited in
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Michal Mertl wrote:
> Did you look at the patch by Bruce at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freebsd-current/message/39605 ?
>
> Bruce, is it still fresh in your memory? Can you comment on the patch -
> can it be commited in some form?
I haven't done anything to clean up the p
Greg Shenaut wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan Nelson cleopede:
> >In the last episode (Feb 03), Alfred Perlstein said:
> >> * Michal Mertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020203 08:17] wrote:
> >> Not really sure what to make of this, anyone else know how we ought
> >> to fix this?
> >
> >This ha
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan Nelson cleopede:
>In the last episode (Feb 03), Alfred Perlstein said:
>> * Michal Mertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020203 08:17] wrote:
>> Not really sure what to make of this, anyone else know how we ought
>> to fix this?
>
>This has actually been an issue for ages,
In the last episode (Feb 03), Alfred Perlstein said:
> * Michal Mertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020203 08:17] wrote:
> > Several runs of the program take about the same time but the time
> > changes wildly when the executable is called differently.
> >
> > The only thing which I can think of that can
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 08:59:41 -0800
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> It sure looks like an alignment issue. If you print the address
> of 'i' and 'j' in the attached program you can see for the fast
> case they are aligned to 8 byte boundries, but when it's slow they
> are at an
* Michal Mertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020203 08:17] wrote:
> I wrote a simple program which does this:
>
> gettimeofday
> something (takes several seconds)
> gettimeofday
> print time elapsed
>
> Several runs of the program take about the same time but the time
> changes wildly when the executable
19 matches
Mail list logo
