Bruce,
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 05:01:29PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
My patch is not suitable for committing verbatim. It has 2 or 3 XXX's.
Do you make these patches available anywhere, so that other people can
look over them and maybe help you on the XXX'd sections?
N
--
FreeBSD: The Power
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Nik Clayton wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 05:01:29PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
My patch is not suitable for committing verbatim. It has 2 or 3 XXX's.
Do you make these patches available anywhere, so that other people can
look over them and maybe help you on the XXX'd
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
I haven't done anything to clean up the patch. I hope the problem
will go away in future versions of gcc (align the stack at runtime in
the few routines that
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
foo:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp,%ebp
subl $8,%esp# - extra instruction for alignment (for foo)
addl $-12,%esp # - extra instruction for alignment (for f1)
What disgusting
* Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020205 12:09] wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
foo:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp,%ebp
subl $8,%esp# - extra instruction for alignment (for foo)
addl $-12,%esp # -
:
: What disgusting code. I find it amazing that they didn't even stick in
: some peephole optimizer to at least limit it to one operation.
:
: It's clearly the result of work in progress :-).
:
:I see really cruddy stuff like this every time i do a gcc -S, don't
:they watch for and try to
* Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020205 12:28] wrote:
I've been forced to add -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 to critical code
in certain projects to get rid of the crap GCC adds to the assembly.
I don't mind if GCC aligns the stack for routines that actually need
it, but
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020205 12:09] wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
foo:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp,%ebp
subl $8,%esp# - extra
On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:36:11 -0800 Terry Lambert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Well, if Linux aligns the initial stack, the chance that gcc will
have auto-alignment added sounds to be about zero. You might as
well go ahead with your patch when you get a chance.
Greg Shenaut wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Nelson cleopede:
In the last episode (Feb 03), Alfred Perlstein said:
* Michal Mertl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020203 08:17] wrote:
Not really sure what to make of this, anyone else know how we ought
to fix this?
This has actually been an
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Michal Mertl wrote:
Did you look at the patch by Bruce at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freebsd-current/message/39605 ?
Bruce, is it still fresh in your memory? Can you comment on the patch -
can it be commited in some form?
I haven't done anything to clean up the
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Michal Mertl wrote:
Did you look at the patch by Bruce at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freebsd-current/message/39605 ?
Bruce, is it still fresh in your memory? Can you comment on the patch -
can it be commited in some form?
* Mike Silbersack [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020204 10:04] wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Michal Mertl wrote:
Did you look at the patch by Bruce at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freebsd-current/message/39605 ?
Bruce, is it still fresh in your
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
I haven't done anything to clean up the patch. I hope the problem
will go away in future versions of gcc (align the stack at runtime in
the few routines that actually need it).
Well, if Linux aligns the
* Michal Mertl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020203 08:17] wrote:
I wrote a simple program which does this:
gettimeofday
something (takes several seconds)
gettimeofday
print time elapsed
Several runs of the program take about the same time but the time
changes wildly when the executable is called
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 08:59:41 -0800
Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
It sure looks like an alignment issue. If you print the address
of 'i' and 'j' in the attached program you can see for the fast
case they are aligned to 8 byte boundries, but when it's slow they
are at an
In the last episode (Feb 03), Alfred Perlstein said:
* Michal Mertl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020203 08:17] wrote:
Several runs of the program take about the same time but the time
changes wildly when the executable is called differently.
The only thing which I can think of that can be causing
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Nelson cleopede:
In the last episode (Feb 03), Alfred Perlstein said:
* Michal Mertl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020203 08:17] wrote:
Not really sure what to make of this, anyone else know how we ought
to fix this?
This has actually been an issue for ages, most
18 matches
Mail list logo
