From owner-freebsd-net Sat Jun 3 1: 2: 8 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from gidora.zeta.org.au (gidora.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.25]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 38AEE37BB20 for ; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 01:02:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: (qmail 27978 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2000 08:01:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bde.zeta.org.au) (203.2.228.102) by gidora.zeta.org.au with SMTP; 3 Jun 2000 08:01:59 -0000 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 18:01:56 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: Archie Cobbs Cc: Julian Elischer , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch review request (ng_ether(4)) In-Reply-To: <200006021835.LAA09339@bubba.whistle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Archie Cobbs wrote: > I think the impact will be small, pretty much one pointer != NULL > test per packet. The fact that ether_input() has been split into > ether_input() and ether_input2() should not matter because gcc will > optimize away the function call to ether_input2(), because it comes > at the very tail end of ether_input(). gcc is only documented to do tail call optimizations on Intel 960's, only with the option -mtail-call. For i386's, -mtail-call doesn't exist, and I've never seen gcc do tail-call optimizations. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message