The reason for the no-asm option was that the asm code often (it felt like every other release) was broken. Either with the asm that comes with VS, or later with MASM as well: When they switched to requiring MASM I thought the build problems were solved, but the second version after the switch failed again.
So I had enough and used the no-asm switch. Yes, the asm code is a little bit faster. But honestly the slightly reduced data throughput won't affect 99.99% of all users. Because even in your test with a 7GB file it 'only' took 50 instead of 17 seconds. And who has such files in an svn repository? Scale that test down to a size that might be used in a real setup, and you won't see a user-noticeable difference. Also, your test uses localhost, with a transfer rate of 425MByte/s - so not something you get even on very fast company LAN's. So for me, I'd rather keep using the no-asm flag. What bothers me more than using no-asm is that there's even such a switch available! While asm code could be necessary in certain situations for performance, it really is not necessary anymore today, at least not if the devs understand C/C++. Other libs that used asm code before got rid of that (or deprecated the asm code) in newer versions. For example zlib. So why is openssl still using asm code? So basically, I won't object if someone wants to enable the asm code in the build. But I myself won't do it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TortoiseSVN-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tortoisesvn-dev/9ba200a1-b4e7-4ff0-acbd-052e451474e0n%40googlegroups.com.
