Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> By author: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > Yes, and with CMPXCHG handler in the kernel it wouldn't be needed > > (the other 686 optimizations like memcpy also work on 386) > > They would still be needed. The 686 built glibc materially improves performance > on 686 class machines. That one isnt an interesting problem to solve. Install > the right software instead. > Yes, the big 686 optimization is CMOV, and that one is ultra-pervasive. -hpa -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix David Weinehall
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Tim Wright
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix David Howells
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Maciej W. Rozycki
- [PATCH] 2nd try: i386 rw_semaphores fix David Howells
- [PATCH] 3rd try: i386 rw_semaphores fix David Howells
- [PATCH] 4th try: i386 rw_semaphores fix David Howells