On Sad, 2005-07-23 at 02:30 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> Larger does not always mean slower. If it did, nobody would implement a
> loop unrolling optimization.
Generally speaking nowdays it does. Almost all loop unrolls are a loss
on PIV.
> ex. Look at how GCC generates jump tables for switch() when there's about
> 10-12 (or more) case's sparsely scattered in the rage from 0 through 255.
You are comparing with very expensive jump operations its an unusual
case. For the majority of situations the TLB/cache overhead of misses
vastly outweighs the odd clock cycle gained by verbose output.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |