---------- 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