Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 19:44:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: julian@elischer.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Patch review request (ng_ether(4)) Message-ID: <200006040244.TAA72017@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006031754120.2186-100000@besplex.bde.org> from Bruce Evans at "Jun 3, 2000 06:01:56 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans writes: > > 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. Hmm.. I was under the impression that tail-call optimization was a "normal" optimization.. maybe not. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006040244.TAA72017>