On Wed, 8 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:25:56AM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > > > If the compiler always aligned all functions and data on 16 byte
> > > > boundries (NetWare) for all i386 code, it would run a lot faster.
> > >
> > > Except on architectures where 16 byte alignment isn't optimal.
> > >
> > > > Cache line alignment could be an option in the loader .... after all,
> > > > it's hte loader that locates data in memory. If Linux were PE based,
> > > > relocation logic would be a snap with this model (like NT).
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting multiple files of differing alignments packed into
> > > a single kernel image, and have the loader select the correct one at
> > > runtime ? I really hope I've misinterpreted your intention.
> >
> > Or more practically, a smart loader than could select a kernel image
> > based on arch and auto-detect to load the correct image. I don't really
> > think it matters much what mechanism is used.
> >
> > What makes more sense is to pack multiple segments for different
> > processor architecures into a single executable package, and have the
> > loader pick the right one (the NT model). It could be used for
> > SMP and non-SMP images, though, as well as i386, i586, i686, etc.
> And this would fit on my 1.4bm floppy so I can boot my hard driveless
> firewalling system, correct?
Your mailer is misattributing people. I didn't say that, my comments were
the ones you've attributed to Jeff.
regards,
davej.
--
| Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.suse.de/~davej
| SuSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
