Re: cvs commit to glibc-package/debian by gotom
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 06:38:47AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 09:33:51AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > And yes, there will be atleast i586/i686/v9/v9b optimized libs when
> > we release 2.2.xx/2.3.x. The /etc/ld.so.nohwcap patch was meant to
> > solve the problem I had with this during woody.
> I don't think I've seen a reply from my email to you on this: At what
> threshold is this worthwhile? How are you benchmarking this?
For sparcv9, I know the difference first hand (just check the
debian-sparc archives for what simply going from v7 to v8 does for
libssl on ultrasparc's). For Sparc, the primary helper is the h/w muldiv
support we gain by leaving v7. Also means I don't have to kill v7
support on the entire sparc dist just to give the v8/v9 users some
As for Intel, pretty much the same applies. The speed up from the faster
h/w math ops help in critical places like libm, ssl, etc.
I saw before where someone said that simple pentium optimizations gave
them 3/4% increase. That's good enough for me to justify it.
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/