Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:42:05 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Dimitar Peikov <mitko@rila.bg> Cc: GB Clark <gclarkii@vsservices.com>, mitko@rila.bg, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Swapping performance Message-ID: <20020307104205.C61088@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20020307080906.367be8df.gclarkii@vsservices.com>; from gclarkii@vsservices.com on Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 08:09:06AM -0600 References: <20020307090707.GC26621@elvis.mu.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203070359110.41354-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20020307142759.0d95d467.mitko@rila.bg> <20020307080906.367be8df.gclarkii@vsservices.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 08:09:06AM -0600, GB Clark wrote: > > I've tested it with : > > > > cc -O6 -o malloc_test malloc_test.c > > That -O6 does not look right from here. Do we support anything over -O2? > > And how about some source for malloc_test.c? The fact of running > something at -O6 started some bells ringing. Not us, but GCC does not support anything over -O3. -O4 and above are treated as -O3. I *really* wish people would have a clue with with in the hell they think they are achieving with -O<bignum>. Not all optimizations are appropriate in all cases. And given this level of optimization and the fact that the linux box is probably a different version of GCC, I wonder how much of this could be due to the compiler. Please rerun your tests with '/usr/bin/time -l' on FreeBSD and however you achieve the same on Linux. P.S. are you sure you are swapping, vs. paging? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020307104205.C61088>