Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:55:33 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> Cc: Marc Tardif <intmktg@CAM.ORG>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: syscall assembly Message-ID: <20001219155533.D79058@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200012162013.PAA14008@marlborough.cnchost.com>; from bakul@bitblocks.com on Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 12:13:32PM -0800 References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012151418570.20060-100000@Gloria.CAM.ORG> <200012162013.PAA14008@marlborough.cnchost.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 12:13:32PM -0800, Bakul Shah wrote:
> May be people who know more about gcc will explain this
> better but I will speculate in any case! Assuming that 16
...
> But I still question this optimization. Are there any stats
> on whether this 16 byte aligning improves performance? it
> certainly increases space use!
Why isn't this discussion going on at gcc@gcc.gnu.org?? That is
certainly where the people in the know on these issues are.
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001219155533.D79058>