From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Feb 16 10:11:25 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C2D16A4CE
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.des.no (flood.des.no [217.116.83.31])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3400E43D1D
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:11:25 -0800 (PST)	(envelope-from des@des.no)
Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666)
	id 740CB5309; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:11:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37])
	by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP
	id EDFD65308; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:11:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602)
	id 8A58233C6F; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:11:16 +0100 (CET)
To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
References: <BAY12-F37zmBUw7MurD00010899@hotmail.com>
	<20040214082420.GB77411@nevermind.kiev.ua>
	<xzpvfm8yssm.fsf@dwp.des.no> <200402160352.16477.wes@softweyr.com>
	<20040216035412.GA70593@xor.obsecurity.org>
From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:11:16 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20040216035412.GA70593@xor.obsecurity.org> (Kris Kennaway's
 message of "Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:54:12 -0800")
Message-ID: <xzpn07i28u3.fsf@dwp.des.no>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on flood.des.no
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.63
cc: Juan Tumani <jtumani55@hotmail.com>
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: 
 Re: FreeBSD 5.2 v/s FreeBSD 4.9 MFLOPS performance (gcc3.3.3 v/s
 gcc2.9.5)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:11:25 -0000

Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 03:52:16AM -0800, Wes Peters wrote:
> > Should I commit this?
> What effect does it have on non-i386 architectures?

It can't possibly hurt.  If the stack is already aligned on a "better"
boundary (64 or 128 bytes), it is also aligned on a 32-byte boundary
since 64 and 128 are multiples of 32, and the patch is a no-op.  If
only a 16-byte alignment is required, a 32-byte alignment wastes a
small amount of memory but does not hurt performance.  I believe that
less-than-16 (and possibly even less-than-32) alignment is pessimal on
all platforms we support.

DES
--=20
Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no