Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:11:16 +0100 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.2 v/s FreeBSD 4.9 MFLOPS performance (gcc3.3.3 v/s gcc2.9.5) Message-ID: <xzpn07i28u3.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20040216035412.GA70593@xor.obsecurity.org> (Kris Kennaway's message of "Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:54:12 -0800") 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 03:52:16AM -0800, Wes Peters wrote: > > Should I commit this? > What effect does it have on non-i386 architectures? 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. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpn07i28u3.fsf>