From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: x86 asm SHA1 (draft) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 00:03:00 -0700 Message-ID: <7vfyhv11ej.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7vzmg376ee.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060624012202.4822.qmail@science.horizon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 24 09:03:13 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fu2Ad-0002HT-KW for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:03:08 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932935AbWFXHDE (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:03:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932940AbWFXHDE (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:03:04 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao05.cox.net ([68.230.241.34]:24494 "EHLO fed1rmmtao05.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932935AbWFXHDC (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:03:02 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060624070301.LMFF5347.fed1rmmtao05.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:03:01 -0400 To: linux@horizon.com In-Reply-To: <20060624012202.4822.qmail@science.horizon.com> (linux@horizon.com's message of "23 Jun 2006 21:22:02 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: linux@horizon.com writes: > Well, I'm not sure it's worth this much trouble. Both of my PPC > implementations are smaller and faster than the current one, > so that's a pretty easy decision. The difference between them > is 2-3%, which is, I think, not enough to be worth the maintenance > burden of a run-time decision infrastructure. Just pick either one > and call it a day. >... > Not that numbers are bad, but I think that until there's a real > need for more than a single good-enough version per instruction set, > this is excessive. OK. I somehow got an impression that your two versions had quite different performance characteristics on G4 and G5 and there was a real choice. If they are between a few per-cent, then I agree it is not worth doing at all.