Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 07:46:16 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: brad.knowles@skynet.be Cc: rwatson@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 4.7 vs 5.2.1 SMP/UP bridging performance Message-ID: <20040507.074616.94036415.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <p0600202dbcc0e2264360@[10.0.1.2]> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040506225450.90990D-100000@fledge.watson.org> <p0600202dbcc0e2264360@[10.0.1.2]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <p0600202dbcc0e2264360@[10.0.1.2]>
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> writes:
: At 10:55 PM -0400 2004/05/06, Robert Watson wrote:
:
: > On occasion, I've had conversations with Peter Wemm about providing HAL
: > modules with optimized versions of various common routines for specific
: > hardware platforms. However, that would require us to make a trade-off
: > between the performance benefits of inlining and the performance benefits
: > of a HAL module...
:
: I'm confused. Couldn't you just do this sort of stuff as
: conditional macros, which would have both benefits?
That makes sharing biniares much harder...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040507.074616.94036415.imp>