Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Then I did the same, but building with -DNO_UNALIGNED_LOADS. The latter > actually ran faster, by a small margin. Here are the hyperfine results: > > [stock] > Time (mean ± σ): 6.638 s ± 0.081 s [User: 6.269 s, System: 0.368 s] > Range (min … max): 6.550 s … 6.841 s 10 runs > > [-DNO_UNALIGNED_LOADS] > Time (mean ± σ): 6.418 s ± 0.015 s [User: 6.058 s, System: 0.360 s] > Range (min … max): 6.394 s … 6.447 s 10 runs > > For casual use as in reftables I doubt the difference is even > measurable. But this result implies that perhaps we ought to just be > using the fallback version all the time. I like that one. One less configurable knob that makes us execute different codepaths is one less thing to be worried about.
