[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support)
From: |
Yoshinori K. Okuji |
Subject: |
Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support) |
Date: |
Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:42:16 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.6.1 |
On Sunday 17 October 2004 22:48, Marco Gerards wrote:
> Do you remember how much is gained by doing this?
I don't remember well, but my paper in Japanese says that it was about
2KB. Since the kernel has grown a bit more since that time, I guess the
gain could be about 3KB in the current implementation. -mregparm=3 has
a significant effect on functions with a few arguments.
Okuji
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), (continued)
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Johan Rydberg, 2004/10/14
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2004/10/15
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Tomas Ebenlendr, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Marco Gerards, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Tomas Ebenlendr, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Marco Gerards, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Marco Gerards, 2004/10/17
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support),
Yoshinori K. Okuji <=
- Re: NESTED_FUNC_ATTR (was: Re: iso9660 support), Marco Gerards, 2004/10/18
Re: iso9660 support, Marco Gerards, 2004/10/15