Mention that perfs would be affected by prod version

report/report.tex

@@ -1014,6 +1014,15 @@ Table~\ref{table:bench_time}.
     \caption{Time benchmarking on hackbench}\label{table:bench_time}
 \end{table}
 
+The performance of \ehelfs{} is probably overestimated, since \ehelfs{} do not
+handle all registers from the original DWARF file, and thus the
+\prog{libunwind} version must perform more computation. However, this overhead,
+although impossible to measure without first implementing supports for every
+register, would probably not be that big, since most of the time is spent
+finding the relevant row. Support for every DWARF instruction, however, would
+not slow down at all the implementation, since every instruction would simply
+be compiled to x86\_64 without affecting the already supported code.
+
 It is also worth noting that on the machine described in
 Section~\ref{ssec:bench_hw}, the compilation of the \ehelfs{} at a level of
 \lstc{-O2} needed to run \prog{hackbench}, that is, \prog{hackbench},
@@ -1036,6 +1045,11 @@ way smaller \lstc{.eh_frame}, thus, the outlined data is reused only a few
 times, compared to \eg{} \prog{libc}, in which the outlined data is reused a
 lot.
 
+Just as with time performance, the measured compactness would be impacted by
+supporting every register, but probably not that much either, since most
+columns are concerned with the four supported registers (see
+Section~\ref{ssec:instr_cov}).
+
 \begin{table}[h]
     \centering
     \begin{tabular}{r r r r r r}