search for: marcusatmicrosoft

...msn dot C0M). However, anyone who wants to point me in the right direction for this hiring is welcome to replying (as long as the list permits) _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Contacts: Organize your contact list. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20090309/f5fa788b/attachment.htm

...That's on my dual core OS X box. I have a 2-processor quad-core Xeon box that runs Linux and also has very similar results. Jonathan _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009

...users= @"Domain Users" force directory mode = 777 force create mode = 777 nt acl support =yes _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Contacts: Organize your contact list. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009

...e majority case where in mine it isn't. It can be checked separately for less cost, assuming the variables stay in registers. Jonathan _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090302/b0b3d67c/attachment.html>

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Jonathan Turner <probata at hotmail.com> wrote: > The crux of the example still seems intact. Have you tried putting something non-trivial (like asm("nop;");) where you'd put the code that runs on the timeout? -Eli

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Jonathan Turner <probata at hotmail.com> wrote: > With gcc -O3 4.2 and 4.4 we match 1.0s.   The LLVM, after running it through > opt -std-compile-opts, is around 1.7s. Hmm, on my computer, I get around 2.5 seconds with both gcc -O3 and llvm-gcc -O3 (using llvm-gcc from svn). Not sure what you're doing differently; I wouldn't be surprised if

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Jonathan Turner <probata at hotmail.com> wrote: > For which version of gcc?  I should mention I'm on OS X and using the LLVM > SVN. gcc 4.3. It's also possible this is processor-sensitive. >> First, try looking at the generated code... the code LLVM generates is >> probably not what you're expecting. I'm getting the

I was playing around in x86 assembly the other day, looking at ways to optimize my cooperative multitasking system. Currently, it uses a 'timeout' counter that is decremented each time through a loop, letting me stop the loop and go to the next cooperative thread if the loop runs a little long. The asm has two overlapping loops: --- _main: mov ecx, 1000000000 timeoutloop:

I see Intel has released a new tool. Oh, it requires some patches to the kernel to record latency times. Good thing people don''t mind patching their kernels, eh? So who can write the equivalent latencytop.d the fastest? ;-) http://www.latencytop.org/ -- cburgess at qnx.com