Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:55:53 +1100 (EST) From: Andy Farkas <andyf@speednet.com.au> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: joelh@gnu.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD on i386 memory model Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811211041230.6633-100000@backup.zippynet.iol.net.au> In-Reply-To: <199811201714.JAA18156@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, John Polstra wrote:
> Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> wrote:
> > >>> On the 386 and 486, call gates are faster. On the pentium,
> > >>> pentium-PRO, and pentium-II, interrupts are faster.
> > > With regards to this, might it not be a good idea to use a different
> > > syscall convention, based on whether you've got the 486/384 options in your
> > > kernel or not?
> >
> > It would require changing libc to read the kernel config file. Do we
> > really want to mess with this?
>
> Of course we don't. Nobody who cares about speed is going to use a 486.
>
> John
Hey...I resent that! My 486 has been hummin' along for several years at a
leiserly 66MHz. I care about speed, its just that I ain't got none!
- cracks rc5 at a steady 55K keys/sec :-)
--
:{ andyf@speednet.com.au
Andy Farkas
System Administrator
Speed Internet Services
http://www.speednet.com.au/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9811211041230.6633-100000>