Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 15:53:02 -0400 From: Harlan Stenn <Harlan.Stenn@pfcs.com> To: joelh@gnu.org Cc: Harlan.Stenn@pfcs.com, garbanzo@hooked.net, mike@smith.net.au, entropy@compufit.at, wwoods@cybcon.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc 2.8 Message-ID: <870.904074782@brown.pfcs.com> In-Reply-To: Joel Ray Holveck's (joelh@gnu.org) message dated Tue, 25 Aug 1998 14:18:30. <199808251918.OAA00942@detlev.UUCP>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I tested two packages. One compares a number (6-8) byte move subroutines (memcpy, bcopy, a variety of Duff's devices (using char, short, and int), and some other "fast" byte copies I've snarfed over the years). I run a reasonable quantity of different size/alignments against each of these, and report the CPU time of each one. The second test is much less (?) useful: I compiled my Mumps implementation with each compiler, and ran 11 coarse-grained tests (for loops, subroutine calls, (string) arithmetic (integer and real number), symbol table stuff, a variety of string operations (catenation, justification, formatting), pattern matching, database ops, and probably a couple of others. I run this test on a "quiet" system, as the test uses wall-clock timing (but each test runs for 30-60 seconds, on average). If I could get TenDRA to produce an executable that can be run under gprof, I'd do that instead. H --- > > I just did another test of performance using TenDRA, comparing it to > > FreeBSD's "cc". > > What was your test methodology? 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?870.904074782>