Re: Why Plan 9 C compilers don't have asm("")

From: Cort Dougan (
Date: Wed Jul 04 2001 - 01:24:36 EST

There isn't such a crippling difference between straight-line and code with
unconditional branches in it with modern processors. In fact, there's very
little measurable difference.

If you're looking for something to blame hurd performance on I'd suggest
the entire design of Mach, not inline asm vs procedure calls. Tossing a
few context switches into calls is a lot more expensive.

} > In other words, if you know the push sequence of your C compiler's
} > function calls, you don't need asm("");.
} You are very much forgetting _inline_ asm. And if you think that's
} unimportant for performance, well, as Al would say, go back playing
} with Hurd.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 07 2001 - 21:00:13 EST