From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 16 10:33:37 2004 Return-Path: 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 CFB2116A4CE for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:33:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from multiplay.co.uk (www1.multiplay.co.uk [212.42.16.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6054F43D2D for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:33:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from vader ([212.135.219.179]) by multiplay.co.uk (multiplay.co.uk [212.42.16.7]) (MDaemon.PRO.v6.8.5.R) with ESMTP id 2-md50000000139.tmp for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:24:01 +0000 Message-ID: <031a01c3f4bb$50b1d800$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Kris Kennaway" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= References: <20040214082420.GB77411@nevermind.kiev.ua> <200402160352.16477.wes@softweyr.com><20040216035412.GA70593@xor.obsecurity.org> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:33:04 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:24:01 +0000 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-MDRemoteIP: 212.135.219.179 X-Return-Path: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: Juan Tumani 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:33:37 -0000 Some interesting finding there what if any are the impacts for performance in real life applications? Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dag-Erling Smørgrav" Kris Kennaway 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. ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.