On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 18:44 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> Ok, well my former optimizations went into 0.158. Here are some quick
> runs of "varlocs -k >/dev/null" on kernel-3.17.4-301.fc21.x86_64:
>
> 0.157 96.00user 0.12system 1:36.08elapsed
> 0.158 70.22user 0.12system 1:10.32elapsed
> 0.159 71.40u
On 12/07/2014 05:23 PM, Petr Machata wrote:
> Josh Stone writes:
>
>> I'll see if I can grab that old kernel debuginfo to do a more direct
>> comparison.
>
> You could grab the old code and compare that. If you're still in the
> 80's, it's the data, not the code.
Ok, well my former optimizatio
Josh Stone writes:
> I'll see if I can grab that old kernel debuginfo to do a more direct
> comparison.
You could grab the old code and compare that. If you're still in the
80's, it's the data, not the code.
Thanks,
Petr
On 12/04/2014 01:00 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> This solves a couple of crashers reported by Alexander.
>
> This will probably have some performance impact, but I haven't measured
> it yet. It would be good to have some performance tests. We also need
> some overflow check for leb128 reading.
>
>
This solves a couple of crashers reported by Alexander.
This will probably have some performance impact, but I haven't measured
it yet. It would be good to have some performance tests. We also need
some overflow check for leb128 reading.
Josh, which tests did you use last time when you did the pe
