From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 06 Dec 2002 18:36:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from nixon.xkey.com ([IPv6:::ffff:209.245.148.124]:56529 "HELO nixon.xkey.com") by ralf.linux-mips.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 18:36:06 +0100 Received: (qmail 18150 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 17:35:29 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO localhost.conservativecomputer.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 17:35:29 -0000 Received: (from lindahl@localhost) by localhost.conservativecomputer.com (8.11.6/8.11.0) id gB6HYfT02667 for linux-mips@linux-mips.org; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:34:41 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: lindahl set sender to lindahl@keyresearch.com using -f Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:34:41 -0800 From: Greg Lindahl To: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: Latest sources from CVS. Message-ID: <20021206093441.A2631@wumpus.attbi.com> Mail-Followup-To: linux-mips@linux-mips.org References: <20021206135110.GD23743@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20021206164558.GH23743@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20021206180241.A7492@linux-mips.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20021206180241.A7492@linux-mips.org>; from ralf@linux-mips.org on Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 06:02:41PM +0100 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 810 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: lindahl@keyresearch.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 06:02:41PM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote: > The first kernel was built as 64-bit ELF using 64-bit pointer and everything > 64-bit. The second kernel was built using the -Wa,-32 trick. That's over > 12% of bloat for full 64-bitiness which brings zero gain. Yes, but that 12% overhead will be reduced when gcc stops using those crappy macros for everything, and finds some common subexpressions. -- greg