On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 06:53 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Gettimeofday loops using gcc-3.2.2 on 2.4.31 and 2.6.12.
>
> Also, 2.4 is faster than 2.6!
All this proves is that gettimeofday() is faster on 2.4 than 2.6.
Hardly surprising.
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
Adrian Bunk wrote: {
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:22:59AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Dr. Horst H. von Brand wrote: {
> Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote: {
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:55:48PM +0100, christos gentsis wrote:
> > > i would like to ask if it possible to change t
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:22:59AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Dr. Horst H. von Brand wrote: {
> Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote: {
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:55:48PM +0100, christos gentsis wrote:
> > > i would like to ask if it possible to change the optimization of th
Dr. Horst H. von Brand wrote: {
Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote: {
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:55:48PM +0100, christos gentsis wrote:
> > i would like to ask if it possible to change the optimization of the
> > kernel from -O2 to -O3 :D, how can i do that? if i change it
1 element jump table.
There's many K of locked memory in these sparse jump tables. About 2K worth
in the VT102 code alone.
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Adrian Bunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sad, 2005-07-23 at 02:30 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Larger does not always mean slower. If it did, nobody would implement a
> loop unrolling optimization.
Generally speaking nowdays it does. Almost all loop unrolls are a loss
on PIV.
> ex. Look at how GCC generates jump tables for swit
christos gentsis skrev:
so if i want to play with and see what happens i have to change it
manually in each make file... good i may create a kernel like that to
see what will happens (just for test) ;)
thanks
Chris
Just edit the top level Makefile and add your custom CFLAGS there. But
you
- Original Message -
From: "Adrian Bunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "christos gentsis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 16:14
Subject: Re: kernel optimization
>
> It's completely untested.
> And since it's larger, it'
Adrian Bunk wrote: {
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:55:48PM +0100, christos gentsis wrote:
> i would like to ask if it possible to change the optimization of the
> kernel from -O2 to -O3 :D, how can i do that? if i change it to the
> top level Makefile does it change to all the Makefiles?
And since
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:55:48PM +0100, christos gentsis wrote:
hello
Hi Chris,
i would like to ask if it possible to change the optimization of the
kernel from -O2 to -O3 :D, how can i do that? if i change it to the top
level Makefile does it change to all
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:52:22PM -0700, David Lang wrote:
> This is a airly frequent question
>
> the short answer is 'don't try'
>
> the longer answer is that all the additional optimization options that are
> part of O3+ are considered individually and if they make sense for the
> kernel t
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 07:55:48PM +0100, christos gentsis wrote:
> hello
Hi Chris,
> i would like to ask if it possible to change the optimization of the
> kernel from -O2 to -O3 :D, how can i do that? if i change it to the top
> level Makefile does it change to all the Makefiles?
search for
This is a airly frequent question
the short answer is 'don't try'
the longer answer is that all the additional optimization options that are
part of O3+ are considered individually and if they make sense for the
kernel they are explicitly enabled (in some cases the optimizations need
to be ex
13 matches
Mail list logo
