[PATCH] ipsum_calc_block: Optimize size and speed

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Martin Mares <mj at ucw.cz> wrote on 2010/04/23 20:10:14:
>
> Hello!
>
> > So basically you are saying that outsiders like my self aren't welcome
> > because BIRD is so important to some IXPs that you don't want to
> > take any chanches?
>
> Certainly not. However, it means that the criteria for accepting patches
> are somewhat stricter than in many other projects.
>
> All ideas are of course welcome (if this discussion leads to skipping
> all byte order conversions in OSPF on big-endian machines, I will be
> happy), but please be prepared that being an "obvious improvement" is
> often a highly subjective trait, so the other developers will sometimes
> want to see a proof that the patch does indeed produce better results
> than the status quo.
>
> In my opinion, one of the key qualities of a good engineer is to prefer
> exact observation and measurement of reality over personal feelings.

How did you come to the conclusion the the current code was better than
the previous version? Seems like "hand waving" to me.

I told told you I had benched the "add carry in C" before and it wasn't
any better(worse actually). Santiago benched it too and it was better
or just as good as before. Only the MIPS had a regression.

Now I have also benched yet again x86 and ppc and both are better
with the simpler version.

So what now? what more proof do you need?
Actually, I give up now. There is nothing more to add and if
every change I propose needs this level of "proof", I can't image
how it hard it must be to propose something more advanced.