This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Faster compilation speed: cache behavior
- From: kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de (Kai Henningsen)
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 25 Aug 2002 14:05:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: Faster compilation speed: cache behavior
- Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
- Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
- References: <8VL75LH1w-B@khms.westfalen.de> <AE40264A-B607-11D6-BF59-000393941EE6@apple.com>
email@example.com (Mike Stump) wrote on 22.08.02 in <AE40264A-B607-11D6-BF59-000393941EE6@apple.com>:
> On Wednesday, August 21, 2002, at 11:47 PM, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> > By reading what Matt wrote about it, at the start of the thread. He
> > claimed that he first obtained a list of the instructions causing cache
> > misses, and then figured out where they were belonged.
> > I have no idea if that is true, but when what you claim and what he
> > claims
> > is so drastically different, confusion is only to be expected.
> I don't understand why you copied private email to the list. I sent it
Because I assumed it was sent to the list, of course. There was no obvious
> Since I am not yet an expert, I cannot comment much, yet, I am very
> knew to the tool, as is Matt. But, of what little I do know, I feel
> comfortable correcting your prior email so that your email would not
> pollute the minds of others as to what the numbers are.
That seems more like correcting the strange picture the combination of
Matt's and your mail created. Don't go blaming people for being confused
when writing confusingly.
"Pollute the minds of others"? Are we now discussing religion here? These
sure seem extremely inappropriate terms in any other context.