From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr 19 13:15:54 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766051065673
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:15:54 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org)
Received: from postfix1-g20.free.fr (postfix1-g20.free.fr [212.27.60.42])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2018FC1F
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:15:54 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org)
Received: from smtp5-g19.free.fr (smtp5-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.35])
	by postfix1-g20.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCEF251F896;
	Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:15:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (tataz.chchile.org [82.233.239.98])
	by smtp5-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1693F8E5B;
	Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:48:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from obiwan.tataz.chchile.org (unknown [192.168.1.25])
	by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA06F9BF12;
	Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:46:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obiwan.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id C6C70405B; Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:46:38 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:46:38 +0200
From: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org>
To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <20080419074638.GH4840@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
References: <20080418132749.GB4840@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
	<200804181945.59189.max@love2party.net>
	<20080418204738.GE4840@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
	<20080419001555.GA50009@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080419001555.GA50009@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06)
Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Integration of ProPolice in FreeBSD
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:15:54 -0000

Hi Steve,

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 05:15:55PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:47:38PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> > 
> > Certainly.  I would like to hear opinion from other committers if SSP
> > should be enabled by default.
> 
> I'm not a committer, but I'll ask a question anyway.
> 
> Can you quantify the performance impact, in particular for
> numerically intensive codes with heavy use of libm?

I don't run such application, so I can't answer.  Sorry.  If you are
willing to give a try, I would be pleased to help you to run your tests,
or even run them on my side.

BTW for the sake of my curiosity, is there a technical reason for
ProPolice to be heavier for libm?

Regards,
-- 
Jeremie Le Hen
< jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >