Arjan van de Ven wrote:
hmm. I wonder if a slightly different approach (based on the __slow)
idea would make sense
1) Use -ffunction-sections option from gcc to put each function in it's
own section
2) Use readprofile/oprofile data to collect an (external to the code)
list of hot/cold functions
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:30:23PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > this way we don't need to put a lot of __slow's in the code *and* it's
> > > based on measurements not assumptions, and can be tuned for a specific
> > > situation in addition.
> >
>
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:30:23PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > this way we don't need to put a lot of __slow's in the code *and* it's
> > based on measurements not assumptions, and can be tuned for a specific
> > situation in addition.
>
> This is reminiscent of "fur", whose source Old SCO
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:30:23PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
this way we don't need to put a lot of __slow's in the code *and* it's
based on measurements not assumptions, and can be tuned for a specific
situation in addition.
This is reminiscent of fur, whose source Old SCO opened.
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:30:23PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
this way we don't need to put a lot of __slow's in the code *and* it's
based on measurements not assumptions, and can be tuned for a specific
situation in addition.
This is
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
hmm. I wonder if a slightly different approach (based on the __slow)
idea would make sense
1) Use -ffunction-sections option from gcc to put each function in it's
own section
2) Use readprofile/oprofile data to collect an (external to the code)
list of hot/cold functions
6 matches
Mail list logo
