Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:38:10 -0800 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.2 v/s FreeBSD 4.9 MFLOPS performance (gcc3.3.3 v/s gcc2.9.5) Message-ID: <200402180938.10796.wes@softweyr.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpn07i28u3.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <BAY12-F37zmBUw7MurD00010899@hotmail.com> <20040216035412.GA70593@xor.obsecurity.org> <xzpn07i28u3.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 16 February 2004 10:11 am, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200402180938.10796.wes>