On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 14:15 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> So at least compared to 0.160 we are not slower (although 0.160 was
> slower than 0.158). But we do have a lot more robustness checking.
>
> I would like to push the following patches, currently on mjw/pending, to
> master:
>
> commit 0f51
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 23:03 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 22:42 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 12:18 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> > > On Fedora 21, this appears to be slightly faster, although pretty close
> > > to noise levels. Mark, can you see if this
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 22:42 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 12:18 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> > On Fedora 21, this appears to be slightly faster, although pretty close
> > to noise levels. Mark, can you see if this helps the performance slip
> > on your el7 system?
>
> It is sl
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 12:18 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> On Fedora 21, this appears to be slightly faster, although pretty close
> to noise levels. Mark, can you see if this helps the performance slip
> on your el7 system?
It is slightly faster ~0.5 secs on ~55 secs.
>/* Unrolling 0 like uleb1
Signed-off-by: Josh Stone
---
On Fedora 21, this appears to be slightly faster, although pretty close
to noise levels. Mark, can you see if this helps the performance slip
on your el7 system?
---
libdw/ChangeLog | 6 ++
libdw/memory-access.h | 17 +++--
2 files changed,
