On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 06:53 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Gettimeofday loops using gcc-3.2.2 on 2.4.31 and 2.6.12.
>
> Also, 2.4 is faster than 2.6!
All this proves is that gettimeofday() is faster on 2.4 than 2.6.
Hardly surprising.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
Adrian Bunk wrote: {
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:22:59AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Dr. Horst H. von Brand wrote: {
> Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote: {
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:55:48PM +0100, christos gentsis wrote:
> > > i would like to ask if it possible to change t
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:22:59AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Dr. Horst H. von Brand wrote: {
> Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote: {
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:55:48PM +0100, christos gentsis wrote:
> > > i would like to ask if it possible to change the optimization of th
Dr. Horst H. von Brand wrote: {
Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote: {
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:55:48PM +0100, christos gentsis wrote:
> > i would like to ask if it possible to change the optimization of the
> > kernel from -O2 to -O3 :D, how can i do that? if i change it
1 element jump table.
There's many K of locked memory in these sparse jump tables. About 2K worth
in the VT102 code alone.
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Adrian Bunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sad, 2005-07-23 at 02:30 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Larger does not always mean slower. If it did, nobody would implement a
> loop unrolling optimization.
Generally speaking nowdays it does. Almost all loop unrolls are a loss
on PIV.
> ex. Look at how GCC generates jump tables for swit
christos gentsis skrev:
so if i want to play with and see what happens i have to change it
manually in each make file... good i may create a kernel like that to
see what will happens (just for test) ;)
thanks
Chris
Just edit the top level Makefile and add your custom CFLAGS there. But
you
- Original Message -
From: "Adrian Bunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "christos gentsis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 16:14
Subject: Re: kernel optimization
>
> It's completely untested.
> And since it's larger, it'
Adrian Bunk wrote: {
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:55:48PM +0100, christos gentsis wrote:
> i would like to ask if it possible to change the optimization of the
> kernel from -O2 to -O3 :D, how can i do that? if i change it to the
> top level Makefile does it change to all the Makefiles?
And since
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:55:48PM +0100, christos gentsis wrote:
hello
Hi Chris,
i would like to ask if it possible to change the optimization of the
kernel from -O2 to -O3 :D, how can i do that? if i change it to the top
level Makefile does it change to all
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:52:22PM -0700, David Lang wrote:
> This is a airly frequent question
>
> the short answer is 'don't try'
>
> the longer answer is that all the additional optimization options that are
> part of O3+ are considered individually and if they make sense for the
> kernel t
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:55:48PM +0100, christos gentsis wrote:
> hello
Hi Chris,
> i would like to ask if it possible to change the optimization of the
> kernel from -O2 to -O3 :D, how can i do that? if i change it to the top
> level Makefile does it change to all the Makefiles?
search for
ons need
to be explicitly turned off for proper functionality of the kernel under
all versions of GCC)
David Lang
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, christos gentsis wrote:
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:55:48 +0100
From: christos gentsis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: kerne
13 matches
Mail list logo
