From owner-freebsd-current Tue Apr 6 13: 3:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F73151D6 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:03:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA10310; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:01:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:01:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199904062001.NAA10310@apollo.backplane.com> To: paul@originative.co.uk Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RE: EGCS optimizations References: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message