> We do need to do one or the other. I assume the current indecision is
> pending some benchmarking work?
That was more or less the idea. But I kind of figured someone would just
tell me which one to do without actually doing any timings. This patch
(applies after the cpuclocks patch) makes the
George Anzinger wrote:
As I understand it modern machines, the indirect call does really bad
things to the pipeline.
Unless the call happens often, really often, you'll not be able to
measure differences. Indirect jump obviously cause pipeline stalls
which often, but not always, can be avoided
George Anzinger wrote:
>
> > /*
> > + * Define this to initialize every k_clock function table so all its
> > + * function pointers are non-null, and always do indirect calls through
> the
> > + * table. Leave it undefined to instead leave null function pointers and
> > + * decide at t
Where were you when I was writing this stuff :). I agree with most all of it,
save the following:
> /*
> + * Define this to initialize every k_clock function table so all its
> + * function pointers are non-null, and always do indirect calls through the
> + * table. Leave it undefined to inste
This patch cleans up the posix-timers interfaces for defining clocks, and
the calls to them. It fixes some sloppy types, adds a clockid_t parameter
to the calls that lacked it, and adds a function pointer that can be used
for clock_getres. It further cleans up the posix-timers.c code using the
k_
5 matches
Mail list logo
