Andrew Haley wrote:
Within reason that's OK, or you can use pastebin.
Done. Patch attached. All you need to do to build is the following:
svn co svn://openbios.org/openbios/trunk/openbios-devel
cd openbios-devel
patch -p0 < openbios-fibonacci.patch
Then to build on x86:
rm -rf obj-x86/; ./co
Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote:
There are a few possibilities, such as changing the alignment of the
data,
but without seeing the code it's hard to say.
It's just a standard checkout from the OpenBIOS SVN with a patch I can
provide to implement the recursive Fibonacci function i
Andrew Haley wrote:
There are a few possibilities, such as changing the alignment of the data,
but without seeing the code it's hard to say.
It's just a standard checkout from the OpenBIOS SVN with a patch I can
provide to implement the recursive Fibonacci function if someone is
happy to tak
Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
So I'm really confused as to how adding a simply function pointer in the
global declaration section (without even adding any code to reference
it) suddenly incurs an extra 40% overhead? Can anyone explain why this
is, and/or point me to any suitable gcc optimisation gui
Hello
I notice maybe a simular problem.when there is a constant pointer then GCC
>4.0 do not inline the func.gcc 3 do.
that can see on this old whetstone benchmark.with gcc 3.4.0 run faster.
http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/whetstone.c
as soon the term double *Z is change to double Z the func i
Hi everyone,
I've been looking at adding some code to a performance-critical section
of OpenBIOS, and I'm quite confused by how some of the changes I am
making are affecting the overall performance.
For a benchmark, I am using a recursive fibonacci function to test the
effect of any changes
