On 2/27/06, Ian Romanick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nicholas Miell wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:25:03 -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> >
> >>After listening to a couple fairly vocal people squawk about the x86-64
> >>dispatch stubs, I spent some time investigating the raised issues. The
> >>pri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nicholas Miell wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:25:03 -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
>
>>After listening to a couple fairly vocal people squawk about the x86-64
>>dispatch stubs, I spent some time investigating the raised issues. The
>>primary issue is th
On 2/27/06, Dave Airlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That's odd. The dispatch routines are 16-byte aligned and the inlining
> > doesn't grow the size of the routine above 16-bytes. Did actual .text size
> > change, or just the library on-disk size?
> >
>
> My impression is that as caching is al
That's odd. The dispatch routines are 16-byte aligned and the inlining
doesn't grow the size of the routine above 16-bytes. Did actual .text size
change, or just the library on-disk size?
My impression is that as caching is all that matters, the overhead of
branching to a cache hot function
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:25:03 -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> After listening to a couple fairly vocal people squawk about the x86-64
> dispatch stubs, I spent some time investigating the raised issues. The
> primary issue is that the TLS versions
