From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 22 07:45:31 2003 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 8EB2A37B401; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snark.ratmir.ru (snark.ratmir.ru [213.24.248.177]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2639643FBD; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:45:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexs@snark.ratmir.ru) Received: from snark.ratmir.ru (alexs@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.ratmir.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3MEjRC2005098; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:45:28 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from alexs@snark.ratmir.ru) Received: (from alexs@localhost) by snark.ratmir.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h3MEjRcx005097; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:45:27 +0400 (MSD) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:45:26 +0400 From: Alex Semenyaka To: Narvi Message-ID: <20030422144526.GD4968@snark.ratmir.ru> References: <20030420011039.GC52081@snark.ratmir.ru> <20030422023703.G29990-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030422023703.G29990-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Alex Semenyaka Subject: Re: /bin/sh and 32-bit arithmetics [CORRECTED] 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: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:45:32 -0000 On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 02:39:50AM +0300, Narvi wrote: > Ahem - wouldn't it be easier to find out *why* the dramatic speed-down > happens and trying to combat it as opposed to trying to show the > speed-down is not releavant? There shouldn't be anything inherently that > much slower in 64 bit shifts... One again: that speed-down is the effect of the disk operations which are slower than in-core arithmetics in the ORDERS of magnitude. When you run any external program from the disk those operations are _always_ included. My point was: since any real script executes at least several external programs the total time it runs will not be affected with the substitution of 32-bit arithmetucs to 64-bit one, even when overflow checks are enabled. I am not concerning about the speed of the external application running, for I am solving the absolutely different problem now. SY, Alex