On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 17:46, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Li-Ta Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 01:06, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > Li-Ta Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > Eric, > > > > > > > > I tried to call cache_on() first than the cpufixeup() > > > > in cpu.c to fix the "slow ecc clear" problem. It still > > > > works that way. Is there any reason we can't do this ? > > > > > > Hmm. I don't see this. I have the cache on and things > > > clear quite quickly. I may have a slightly different calling > > > order then the standard tree. > > > > > > Ollie can you compare what is checked into the tree with > > > the last release I did for Lightning? It works there... > > > > > > > BTW, why are you using inline asm to clearing the memory ? > > Mostly it was just a copy from the romcc code. And I have > a little distrust of compilers when I want a tight loop. > > > Isn't it just one line in C to clear the memory ? Why not use > > string instruction instead of mov ? > > A string mov instruction is slower. >
I just tried with a stosl version. It is not slower at all. We are using stosl in the asm code to clear stack and bss, why not use it here too. Ollie _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
