[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 32-bit profiling counts?
From: |
Andrew J. Schorr |
Subject: |
Re: 32-bit profiling counts? |
Date: |
Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:16:12 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 09:17:04PM -0600, arnold@skeeve.com wrote:
> > Also, here's another thought: if you're going to dive in and make this
> > change, might it be safer to apply the attached patch?
> > This way, we leave the other uses of dl unchanged and switch
> > only exec_count to use long long. I'm not sure it matters, but it seems
> > a bit less risky. And why incur a potential performance hit for the
> > other uses of dl? It passes "make check" and "make valgrind".
>
> Did that. Everything pushed.
Super. Thanks. I should have suggested this earlier, but since that ldl
union field is now dedicated to exec_count, would it make sense to make
it unsigned?
Regards,
Andy
- 32-bit profiling counts?, Peter Lindgren, 2020/06/05
- Re: 32-bit profiling counts?, Andrew J. Schorr, 2020/06/06
- Re: 32-bit profiling counts?, Wolfgang Laun, 2020/06/06
- Re: 32-bit profiling counts?, Andrew J. Schorr, 2020/06/06
- Re: 32-bit profiling counts?, arnold, 2020/06/07
- Re: 32-bit profiling counts?, Wolfgang Laun, 2020/06/07
- Re: 32-bit profiling counts?, Andrew J. Schorr, 2020/06/07
- Re: 32-bit profiling counts?, arnold, 2020/06/08
- Re: 32-bit profiling counts?, Andrew J. Schorr, 2020/06/08
- Re: 32-bit profiling counts?, arnold, 2020/06/09
- Re: 32-bit profiling counts?,
Andrew J. Schorr <=