> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Timo Kreuzer <[email protected]>\ > [abbreviated]
> > I'm against wasting precious compile time for an MP hal that doesn't even > work. And I would actually like to have the kernel being compiled the same > way. I bet the performance improvements of inlining some spinlock code are > really neglectable. > I hate being a spoilsport, especially on an issue that may have gone stale already, but *compile time* is not even 10% as important as *run time*. I dunno about the particulars in this case, it's just a general priority opinion. To me, performance is *everything* .. I gladly spend a *week* to gain significant performance, especially if it also makes the code clearer and more readable! Is it just I who think that software is getting slower and slower and bigger and bigger these days? And I mean particularly the goo gaa that comes out of Redmond these days :-/ But as everybody in the world seems to play "Follow John" with Microsoft, users are left with software where they have to go for a coffe break after giving a command before their multicore superduper computers even give a burp, because programmers care less about runtime than compile time these days :( Blame the RAD frenzy for that! I'd even go as far as dropping UP support completely and hotpatching > spinlock functions. > Dropping single core processor support sound like a bad idea to me. W.B.R. // Love
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
