Hello,
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 09:55:03 +, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> Have you been able to measure any performance improvement with these new
>> structures? In theory, if aligned with cache lines, performance should
>> improve but real num
Am 29.03.2015 um 23:52 schrieb Richard Henderson:
No decrease in boot time is good. We /know/ we're saving memory, after all.
Well, I would not mind a decrease in boot time, too.
The more it decreases, the better. :-)
To be honest: in my version I only used 1 bit bitfield entries for
boolean v
Am 29.03.2015 um 23:52 schrieb Richard Henderson:
On Mar 27, 2015 14:09, "Emilio G. Cota" wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 09:55:03 +, Alex Bennée wrote:
Have you been able to measure any performance improvement with these new
structures? In theory, if aligned with cache lines, performance s
On Mar 27, 2015 14:09, "Emilio G. Cota" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 09:55:03 +, Alex Bennée wrote:
> > Have you been able to measure any performance improvement with these new
> > structures? In theory, if aligned with cache lines, performance should
> > improve but real numbers woul
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 09:55:03 +, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Have you been able to measure any performance improvement with these new
> structures? In theory, if aligned with cache lines, performance should
> improve but real numbers would be nice.
I haven't benchmarked anything, which makes me ve
On 03/25/2015 12:50 PM, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> This brings down the size of the struct from 56 to 32 bytes on 64-bit,
> and to 16 bytes on 32-bit.
>
> The appended adds macros to prevent us from mistakenly overflowing
> the bitfields when more elements are added to the corresponding
> enums/macro
Emilio G. Cota writes:
> This brings down the size of the struct from 56 to 32 bytes on 64-bit,
> and to 16 bytes on 32-bit.
Have you been able to measure any performance improvement with these new
structures? In theory, if aligned with cache lines, performance should
improve but real numbers w
This brings down the size of the struct from 56 to 32 bytes on 64-bit,
and to 16 bytes on 32-bit.
The appended adds macros to prevent us from mistakenly overflowing
the bitfields when more elements are added to the corresponding
enums/macros.
Note that reg/mem_reg need only 6 bits (for ia64) but
