Re: Question on BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT in GCC on NetBSD/m68k
On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 13:56 +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> On 13.6.2025 4.36, Finn Thain wrote:
> > And therein lies the rub -- to identify those workloads which should be
> > measured and to afford each one a suitable weight in your decision making.
>
> It's not just workload affecting the results; compiler version,
> optimization options [1], workload & kernel config options and sometimes
> even unrelated code changes [2], can affect how given instruction
> sequence settles into cache.
>
>
> > That's why this was always political.
>
> I'd rather keep things technical and fact-based.
>
> Whatever testing is done, the one wider conclusion that *can* be drawn
> from it, is that if there's a noticeable performance difference, such
> differences are possible also in other workloads.
>
> (Very large difference could indicate also functional issues, e.g. bug
> in given compiler build code generation. That's why it's important to
> have good tooling for pinpointing what exactly is causing the difference.)
Even if that was the case - which it certainly isn't - code that is slower and
working is better than code that does not work at all.
Both you and Finn still seem to miss the point that the current 2 bytes alignment
path is a dead end and neither you nor Finn have made any substantial contributions
to keep this path alive.
If you want to keep this path, roll back your sleeves and get to work.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' Physicist
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Reply to: