From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <546ad2649cbc93791073f5b40499e60e@coraid.com>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Mon,  8 Oct 2007 10:50:42 -0400
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: what about microkernel?
In-Reply-To: <283f5df10710080620x5a5ec548pa530b38df41833ab@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: cccdb868-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> His original Kernel, L3, was written in pure assembly for x86, using every
> trick possible.
> 

there's nothing wrong with assembly per ce, but i don't follow this logic.
generally speaking, compilers are better than humans at doing instruction
scrabble.  and worse, optimal instructions are a function of (at least) the
cpu model, northbridge and memory, as slightly different memory latency
or bandwidth could alter the tradeoff between cycles and code size.

- erik