Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 22:03:32 -0500 From: "Josh Paetzel" <jpaetzel@hutchtel.net> To: "Alfred Perlstein" <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: researching FreeBSD Message-ID: <010701bfb899$fef8f9a0$625662d1@visi.com> References: <3916CF65.8BC7835A@tdnet.com.br> <Pine.A41.3.96.1000508140546.27716A-100000@gsaix2.cc.GaSoU.EDU> <20000508193701.A55455@strontium.scientia.demon.co.uk> <20000508141129.B17425@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * Ben Smithurst <ben@scientia.demon.co.uk> [000508 14:06] wrote: > > Scott wrote: > > > > > This question and your answer makes me wonder. Are there no ASM > > > optimizations that have been made? > > > > Yes, but the vast majority of it is C. > > Doesn't this have to do with portability? I thought the reason we liked to stay away from assembly was to make it easier to switch platforms. (at the source code level) > > ben@magnesium:~$ locate "/usr/src/*.[Ss]" | wc -l > > 243 > > ben@magnesium:~$ locate "/usr/src/*.c" | wc -l > > 7127 > > > > Don't take this as meaning the ratio of C to assembler is 30:1, since > > the .c files may well be much bigger, the .s files are usually just > > one routine which has been optimized (e.g. some libc functions in > > /usr/src/lib/libc/i386). There is almost certainly more C and less > > assembler than 30:1. > > It's also important to note that although there is quite a bit > of asm (relatively speaking) a bunch of it can be attributed to > hand optimized routines for which C equivelants exist for archs > that don't want/have-time to hand optimize. > > -- > -Alfred Perlstein - > Josh I write all my device drivers in logo. pen down color=blue f20 rotate 30 f10 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?010701bfb899$fef8f9a0$625662d1>