Re: [OT] Re: code bloat [was Re: Semaphore assembly-code bug]
From: Andi Kleen (ak_at_suse.de)
Date: 10/31/04
- Previous message: Greg Banks: "Re: [PATCH] deviceiobook.tmpl update"
- In reply to: Lee Revell: "[OT] Re: code bloat [was Re: Semaphore assembly-code bug]"
- Next in thread: Tim Hockin: "Re: code bloat [was Re: Semaphore assembly-code bug]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:48:48 +0200 To: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 07:20:04PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 02:13 +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > It's sort of frightening that someone will need to
> > rewrite Xlib or, say, OpenOffice :(
>
> I think very few application developers understand the point Linus made
> - that bigger code IS slower code due to cache misses. If this were
> widely understood we would be in pretty good shape.
It's true in some cases, but not true in others. Don't make it your
gospel.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Greg Banks: "Re: [PATCH] deviceiobook.tmpl update"
- In reply to: Lee Revell: "[OT] Re: code bloat [was Re: Semaphore assembly-code bug]"
- Next in thread: Tim Hockin: "Re: code bloat [was Re: Semaphore assembly-code bug]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
