+1 to that lets make small, fast software!! :) (i.e. good software)
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Love Nystrom <[email protected]>wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Timo Kreuzer <[email protected]>\ >> > [abbreviated] > >> >> I'm against wasting precious compile time for an MP hal that doesn't even >> work. And I would actually like to have the kernel being compiled the same >> way. I bet the performance improvements of inlining some spinlock code are >> really neglectable. >> > > I hate being a spoilsport, especially on an issue that may have gone stale > already, > but *compile time* is not even 10% as important as *run time*. > I dunno about the particulars in this case, it's just a general priority > opinion. > > To me, performance is *everything* .. > I gladly spend a *week* to gain significant performance, > especially if it also makes the code clearer and more readable! > > Is it just I who think that software is getting slower and slower and > bigger and bigger these days? > And I mean particularly the goo gaa that comes out of Redmond these days > :-/ > But as everybody in the world seems to play "Follow John" with Microsoft, > users are left with software where they have to go for a coffe break after > giving a command > before their multicore superduper computers even give a burp, because > programmers > care less about runtime than compile time these days :( > Blame the RAD frenzy for that! > > I'd even go as far as dropping UP support completely and hotpatching >> spinlock functions. >> > > Dropping single core processor support sound like a bad idea to me. > > W.B.R. > // Love > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
