On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:44:51AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 10:32:18AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > 
> > Also i386 the inlined code for memcpy() is seriously sub-optimal.
> > (you don't want to be doing the 'rep movsb' with cx 0/1/2/3)
> 
> We're building the bootblocks with -mtune=i386.  This may have something
> to do with the pessimal code selection.  No, I don't know why anyone might
> think -mtune=i386 was a good idea, even for reasons of code density i486
> should be just as good.

Changing those to i486 (or removing them altogether) makes no difference
on my source tree - which predates the explosion and has 56 free bytes.

	David

-- 
David Laight: david@l8s.co.uk