From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <448EFCC5.60308@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:58:29 +0200 From: Philippe Gerum MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] ns vs. tsc as internal timer base References: <448E98A3.6080707@domain.hid> <448E9E8B.70809@domain.hid> <448EA7F7.5000802@domain.hid> <448EB038.8070802@domain.hid> <448EE593.7010809@domain.hid> <448EF022.1040901@domain.hid> <17550.61982.685449.470866@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <17550.61982.685449.470866@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: Jan Kiszka , xenomai-core Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: > > Redone the check here on a Centrino 1.6Mhz, and still have roughly x20 > > improvement (a bit better actually). I'm using Debian/sarge gcc 3.3.5. > > I think I remember that Pentium M has a much shorter mull instruction > than other processors of the family. > That would explain. Anyway, as John Stulz put it: "math is hard, lets go shopping!" -- Philippe.