---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Timo Kreuzer timo.kreuzer@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