On 22 November 2002 07:26, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:22:53AM -0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > > This is already done in 2.5. (Well, the -march anyways)
> >
> > I'd say benefits of compiling p4-optimized code are questionable.
>
> On what grounds ?
I consider 16-byte code alignment as way too big.
P4 zealots can demand even more I guess :(
I will happily change my mind when/if I'll see
favorable speed/kernel size benchmarks. Until then,
I think 4-byte alignment is closest to sanity.
Not exactly P4 related but: if you tell gcc your
processor has cmov, gcc will try to use it.
Results:
* gcc code is worse with cmov than without
* some CPUs (Cyrix?) have slow cmovs (microcoded?)
* you lose whenever you try to use your code
on cmov-less CPU.
Dave, I am absolutely sure _you_ do not compile
for P4 needlessly, but lots of ordinary people
do that just to be hip. I wanted to point out
why it may be undesirable.
> > Are you sure your kernel will run faster, not slower?
> > Benchmark numbers? Or it's only warm and fuzzy feeling?
>
> The kernel mailing list archives are that way --->
>
> > Warm and fuzzy feelings of kernels compiled for very new
> > processors quickly disappear when you try to boot e.g. 486 with
> > them ;)
>
> "Doctor, it hurts when I do this"
It hurts even more when you need to recompile
gcc,glibc,X,KDE,mozilla,etc etc etc :)
I payed no attention when I compiled stuff on my home Duron...
>From the moment when I tried to revive oldie 486
I started to ./configure everything for 386 ;)
-- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:39 EST