From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jan 22 02:06:36 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id CAA26441 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 02:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA26434 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 02:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA00415; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 02:05:59 -0800 Message-Id: <199601221005.CAA00415@rah.star-gate.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95 To: davidg@Root.COM cc: Rob Mallory , freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: stanford benchmark/usenix In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 22 Jan 1996 01:45:25 PST." <199601220945.BAA14112@Root.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 02:05:59 -0800 From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk >>> David Greenman said: > >Do we have pentium optimized bcopy and bzero ? > > > >Because some of the benchmarks could clearly benefit from them. > > After reading the Usenix paper on OS performance on Pentium machines, I'm > inclined to add optimized code to our libc. Basically, get the processor typ e > (probably via sysctl) and use this to control which versions are called - > similar to what I recently did with bzero in the kernel. > ...This is fairly low priority, however, so won't likely happen for a few > months. Gosh, do I see an open invitation or what ? 8) Happy Hacking, Amancio