On Mar 15, 2005, at 9:53 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:32:27 -0600 Hollis Blanchard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 14, 2005, at 9:34 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Since you brought this file to my attention, I figured I might as
well
do
some simple cleanups. This patch does
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:43:10AM -0600, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> FWIW, keep in mind that a cache miss due to large structures not fitting
> is a zillion times more expensive than byte-aligning in the cpu
> (even if byte operands had a cpu perf overhead, which I don't think
> they do on ppc).
Act
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:53:39AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell was heard to remark:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:32:27 -0600 Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Why not use a byte instead of a full int (reordering the members for
> > alignment)?
>
> Because "classical" boleans are ints.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:32:27 -0600 Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 14, 2005, at 9:34 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Since you brought this file to my attention, I figured I might as well
> > do
> > some simple cleanups. This patch does:
> > - single bit int bitfiel
On Mar 14, 2005, at 9:34 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Since you brought this file to my attention, I figured I might as well
do
some simple cleanups. This patch does:
- single bit int bitfields are a bit suspect and Anndrew pointed
out recently that they are probably slower to access than ints
Hi Andrew,
Since you brought this file to my attention, I figured I might as well do
some simple cleanups. This patch does:
- single bit int bitfields are a bit suspect and Anndrew pointed
out recently that they are probably slower to access than ints
- get rid of some m
6 matches
Mail list logo
