Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:16:58 +0000 From: Bruce M Simpson <bms@spc.org> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> 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: <20040216201658.GE3791@saboteur.dek.spc.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpn07i28u3.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <BAY12-F37zmBUw7MurD00010899@hotmail.com> <20040214082420.GB77411@nevermind.kiev.ua> <xzpvfm8yssm.fsf@dwp.des.no> <200402160352.16477.wes@softweyr.com> <20040216035412.GA70593@xor.obsecurity.org> <xzpn07i28u3.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 07:11:16PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > 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 not happy with the patch as-is and would be happier if a cleaner MI-way of expressing this were found. BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040216201658.GE3791>