On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:50:00AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:18:22AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >> Well, when the glibc people had this discussion (the switch to ELF),
> >> the performance penalty was found to be on the order of
Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:18:22AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Well, when the glibc people had this discussion (the switch to ELF),
>> the performance penalty was found to be on the order of 5%.
>>
... by testing with somewhat typical programs.
>> I don't know w
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:18:22AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Sam Hocevar wrote:
>
> > ("statically linked for performance reasons", rotfl)
>
> Well, when the glibc people had this discussion (the switch to ELF), the
> performance penalty was found to be on the order of 5%.
>
> I don't
Hi, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> ("statically linked for performance reasons", rotfl)
Well, when the glibc people had this discussion (the switch to ELF), the
performance penalty was found to be on the order of 5%.
I don't know whether modern CPUs' register aliasing hardware changes that
number.
Whethe
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> we asked for someone on debian-legal to scrutinize it and say if the
> work we did is enough to let this package in Debian
The MPlayer tree contains an almost verbatim copy of libdvdcss
("statically linked for performance reasons", rotfl) and a co
well, I changed my mind
a packaging of mplayer 0.90 is available at
deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/ ./
we asked for someone on debian-legal to scrutinize it and say if the
work we did is enough to let this package in Debian
it has also been uploaded to the queue (in case an ftp-installer
6 matches
Mail list logo
