Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:01:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: paul@originative.co.uk Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RE: EGCS optimizations Message-ID: <199904062001.NAA10310@apollo.backplane.com> References: <A6D02246E1ABD2119F5200C0F0303D10FE93@octopus>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:I doubt that that sort of benchmark is going to say an awful lot about the
:performance of the optimisation levels since compiling /usr/sr/usr.sbin is
:going to be affected by disk i/o performance far more than it would be by
:cpu performance. The relative speed differences of the different egcs/libc
:binaries is probably smoothed out by the i/o affects which is why the times
:look so similar.
:
:Something that is more cpu bound would be a better benchmark for comparing
:the optimisation options.
:
:
:Paul.
That test was 100% cpu bound. There was no ( significant ) I/O. I ran
it a few times to build the cache before timing it.
It's no big deal, really. I think the EGCS bandwagon is going to continue
to move forward and PGCS runs on top of it, so moving to EGCS puts FreeBSD
in a better position in the long term.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904062001.NAA10310>