Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:19:57 +0100 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Juan Tumani <jtumani55@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.2 v/s FreeBSD 4.9 MFLOPS performance (gcc3.3.3 v/s gcc2.9.5) Message-ID: <xzp8yj2zsia.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20040216201658.GE3791@saboteur.dek.spc.org> (Bruce M. Simpson's message of "Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:16:58 %2B0000") 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> <xzpn07i28u3.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040216201658.GE3791@saboteur.dek.spc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce M Simpson <bms@spc.org> writes: > I'm not happy with the patch as-is and would be happier if a cleaner > MI-way of expressing this were found. What exactly is wrong with the patch? (except for the fact that empirical tests show it should align on a 64-byte boundary) DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzp8yj2zsia.fsf>