On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:12:42 +0200
soren.sandm...@gmail.com (Søren Sandmann) wrote:
> Pekka Paalanen writes:
>
> >> As a discussion point, wouldn't it be better for the ALIGN macro to
> >> assume 32-byte cache lines? Both 16-byte and 32-byte cachelines are
> >> currently in
Pekka Paalanen writes:
>> As a discussion point, wouldn't it be better for the ALIGN macro to
>> assume 32-byte cache lines? Both 16-byte and 32-byte cachelines are
>> currently in common use, but by aligning the buffers to 32-byte addresses
>> we would simultaneously
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:43:25 +0100
Ben Avison wrote:
> Each of the aligns can only add a maximum of 15 bytes to the space
> requirement. This permits some edge cases to use the stack buffer where
> previously it would have deduced that a heap buffer was required.
> ---
>
Each of the aligns can only add a maximum of 15 bytes to the space
requirement. This permits some edge cases to use the stack buffer where
previously it would have deduced that a heap buffer was required.
---
This is an update of my previous patch (now posted over a year ago):