I tend to disagree, I bet the gain wouldn't be even measurable.And I disagree with you on this. The fact you are saving CPU cycles means improved performance. Period. Whether it's measurable or not depends on what you are doing.Saving CPU cycles is not a good thing per se, it is only good when it saves time. When you sacrifice a measurable time to make an unmeasurable execution gain, you loose time, not gain it.And your point is?
To explain to you that a 50-clocks save is nothing to care of: first please estimate what part of the total execution time (from entering the kernel to leaving it) is this. Then compute, what you gain. Not sooner than that it can be used as a performance argument in such a topic.
And you still didn't provide any more example than the two programs which apparently break the POSIX standard by relying on values they should not rely on.I didn't say this. POSIX doesn't define these values.
You didn't say this, but I did. If POSIX doesn't define them, then, as you yourself noticed in your first post, MiNT is in the very position to define them arbitrarily and POSIX-compliant programs have to work. If they do not, then they are not POSIX-compliant, kinda by definition.
And obviously Helmut has noticed your overly negative attitude towards the thread.
Hum, yes, I must admit, if Helmut shared your point, then you must be right per se. And my "overly negative attitude" must be a weighty argument by itself to prove the point.
But please do not understand me wrong: it is your OS and you will do it with it whatever you want. In my humble opinion, the change you propose is not adequately justified. But anything you (MiNT users) do with the OS, won't impact me, because I don't use MiNT anymore. I just share opinions, which you are in a good position to disregard.
Pozdrawiam KMK