Just out of curiousity, has anyone documented how much of a performance
hit there is with the i386 code enabled in the kernel?
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Mike Smith wrote:
> > > That's one of the big reasons that we're 4.x based right now rather
> > > than 3.x based, despite 4.x's slightly larger memory footprint. That
> > > and 4.x's much better c++ compiler.
> > Well, Warner, I've never done embedded systems. So, tell me, do they
> > actually use any C++ code in embedded systems? C++ has a rather high
> > overhead as far as disk space & memory goes. I would imagine that 99%+
> > of embedded systems do not use C++ code except perhaps for a very small
> > amount of the code.
> You have a very vivid imagination.
> Unfortunately, imagination isn't very helpful here; the whole idea is to
> do stuff that's actually useful, not just what we'd imagine might be
> useful. And in that regard, a *lot* of application programming (which
> includes programming for embedded systems) is done using c++ compilers.
> ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his
> rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want
> to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force
> people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt]
> V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message