Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:46:38 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Integration of ProPolice in FreeBSD Message-ID: <20080419074638.GH4840@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> In-Reply-To: <20080419001555.GA50009@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20080418132749.GB4840@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <200804181945.59189.max@love2party.net> <20080418204738.GE4840@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20080419001555.GA50009@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Steve, On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 05:15:55PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:47:38PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > > > > Certainly. I would like to hear opinion from other committers if SSP > > should be enabled by default. > > I'm not a committer, but I'll ask a question anyway. > > Can you quantify the performance impact, in particular for > numerically intensive codes with heavy use of libm? I don't run such application, so I can't answer. Sorry. If you are willing to give a try, I would be pleased to help you to run your tests, or even run them on my side. BTW for the sake of my curiosity, is there a technical reason for ProPolice to be heavier for libm? Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080419074638.GH4840>