From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 19 00:44:46 2004 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 506E716A4CE for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:44:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.omnis.com (smtp.omnis.com [216.239.128.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4693C43D1F for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:44:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from zahpod.softweyr.com (66-91-236-204.san.rr.com [66.91.236.204]) by smtp-relay.omnis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85EAB1880A22; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:44:43 -0800 (PST) From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:38:10 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: <20040216035412.GA70593@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200402180938.10796.wes@softweyr.com> cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: Juan Tumani cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.2 v/s FreeBSD 4.9 MFLOPS performance (gcc3.3.3 v/s gcc2.9.5) 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: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:44:46 -0000 On Monday 16 February 2004 10:11 am, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Kris Kennaway writes: > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 03:52:16AM -0800, Wes Peters wrote: > > > Should I commit this? > > > > What effect does it have on non-i386 architectures? > > It can't possibly hurt. If the stack is already aligned on a "better" > boundary (64 or 128 bytes), it is also aligned on a 32-byte boundary > since 64 and 128 are multiples of 32, and the patch is a no-op. If > only a 16-byte alignment is required, a 32-byte alignment wastes a > small amount of memory but does not hurt performance. I believe that > less-than-16 (and possibly even less-than-32) alignment is pessimal on > all platforms we support. I'm building world on my sparc64 just to be sure. Sorry, I didn't get to=20 work on this at all last night, but I should be able to post conclusive=20 results tonight, I just have to get through the rather long buildworld=20 while I'm at the office today. Thank ${DEITY} for cheap, fast AMD machines. ;^) =2D-=20 Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com