Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 18:01:56 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch review request (ng_ether(4)) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006031754120.2186-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200006021835.LAA09339@bubba.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Archie Cobbs wrote: > I think the impact will be small, pretty much one pointer != NULL > test per packet. The fact that ether_input() has been split into > ether_input() and ether_input2() should not matter because gcc will > optimize away the function call to ether_input2(), because it comes > at the very tail end of ether_input(). gcc is only documented to do tail call optimizations on Intel 960's, only with the option -mtail-call. For i386's, -mtail-call doesn't exist, and I've never seen gcc do tail-call optimizations. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" 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.4.21.0006031754120.2186-100000>