[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations
From: |
Kieran Mansley |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:29:26 +0000 |
On Mon, 2010-02-15 at 20:17 +0100, address@hidden wrote:
> I'm happy with adding defines to let stack work faster if you *know*
> your incoming packets are aligned, but I'm not happy with optimizing
> the
> actual source code for this.
Just to make sure there is no ambiguity about this, I agree.
Performance of lwIP is secondary to ease of use, portability, and being
lightweight.
Kieran
- RE: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations, (continued)
- RE: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations, Stéphane Lesage, 2010/02/13
- RE: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations, Stéphane Lesage, 2010/02/14
- RE: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations, Stéphane Lesage, 2010/02/14
- RE: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations, Stéphane Lesage, 2010/02/14
- Re: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations, address@hidden, 2010/02/15
- RE: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations, Bill Auerbach, 2010/02/15
- Re: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations, address@hidden, 2010/02/15
- Re: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations,
Kieran Mansley <=
- RE: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations, Bill Auerbach, 2010/02/16
- RE: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations, Simon Goldschmidt, 2010/02/16
- RE: [lwip-devel] byte order, packing, optimizations, Kieran Mansley, 2010/02/16