26 Mar
2011
26 Mar
'11
6:44 p.m.
+1 to that
lets make small, fast software!! :) (i.e. good software)
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Love Nystrom <love.nystrom(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timo Kreuzer <timo.kreuzer(a)web.de>\
[abbreviated]
I'm against wasting precious compile time for an MP hal that doesn't even
work. And I would actually like to have the kernel being compiled the same
way. I bet the performance improvements of inlining some spinlock code are
really neglectable.
I hate being a spoilsport, especially on an issue that may have gone stale
already,
but *compile time* is not even 10% as important as *run time*.
I dunno about the particulars in this case, it's just a general priority
opinion.
To me, performance is *everything* ..
I gladly spend a *week* to gain significant performance,
especially if it also makes the code clearer and more readable!
Is it just I who think that software is getting slower and slower and
bigger and bigger these days?
And I mean particularly the goo gaa that comes out of Redmond these days
:-/
But as everybody in the world seems to play "Follow John" with Microsoft,
users are left with software where they have to go for a coffe break after
giving a command
before their multicore superduper computers even give a burp, because
programmers
care less about runtime than compile time these days :(
Blame the RAD frenzy for that!
I'd even go as far as dropping UP support completely and hotpatching
spinlock functions.
Dropping single core processor support sound like a bad idea to me.
W.B.R.
// Love
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev