Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 08:50:51 +0200 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: 4.7 vs 5.2.1 SMP/UP bridging performance Message-ID: <p0600202dbcc0e2264360@[10.0.1.2]> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040506225450.90990D-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040506225450.90990D-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:55 PM -0400 2004/05/06, Robert Watson wrote:
> On occasion, I've had conversations with Peter Wemm about providing HAL
> modules with optimized versions of various common routines for specific
> hardware platforms. However, that would require us to make a trade-off
> between the performance benefits of inlining and the performance benefits
> of a HAL module...
I'm confused. Couldn't you just do this sort of stuff as
conditional macros, which would have both benefits?
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/>; for more info.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0600202dbcc0e2264360>