Win2k - 1000ms
Wine w/ patch - 1346ms
Wine w/o patch - 1294ms
That's a fascinatingly round number for Win2K, isn't it?
I suspect the slowness is caused by the involution: any cycles saved
from the branch hinting is lost in the double-not.
thanks -mike
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, I agree. In fact the patch actually decreases performance.
> Test: 10,000,000 calls to EnterCriticalSection & LeaveCriticalSection,
> simulating fast path on critical sections.
> Results:
> Win2k - 1000ms
> Wine w/ patch - 1346ms
> Wine w/o patch
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Michael Stefaniuc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andreas Mohr wrote:
Umm, this should go into a global header file, right?
The theory being that it would be useful at many more performance critical
Wine places...
But I have to admit that I don't know which header file
Michael Stefaniuc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Mohr wrote:
>> Umm, this should go into a global header file, right?
>> The theory being that it would be useful at many more performance critical
>> Wine places...
>> But I have to admit that I don't know which header file this should
>> be.
Andreas Mohr wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:50:36PM +0100, Robert Shearman wrote:
Index: wine/dlls/ntdll/critsection.c
===
RCS file: /home/wine/wine/dlls/ntdll/critsection.c,v
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u -p -r1.26 critsecti
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:50:36PM +0100, Robert Shearman wrote:
> Index: wine/dlls/ntdll/critsection.c
> ===
> RCS file: /home/wine/wine/dlls/ntdll/critsection.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.26
> diff -u -p -r1.26 critsection.c
> --
