https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=363858
--- Comment #7 from Carl Love <c...@us.ibm.com> --- I ran the perfomance tests comparing the source tree with patch 3 and the source tree with patch 4. The results were run for 10 repetitions and 5 repetitions. The results for the two are very consistent. The 10 repetition results are as follows: -- Running tests in perf ---------------------------------------------- -- bigcode1 -- bigcode1 valgrind-patch3:0.19s no: 2.1s (11.0x, -----) me: 4.4s (23.0x, -----) bigcode1 valgrind-patch4:0.19s no: 2.1s (10.9x, 1.0%) me: 4.3s (22.9x, 0.5%) -- bigcode2 -- bigcode2 valgrind-patch3:0.19s no: 4.7s (24.6x, -----) me:10.7s (56.4x, -----) bigcode2 valgrind-patch4:0.19s no: 4.7s (24.6x, 0.0%) me:10.7s (56.4x, 0.1%) -- bz2 -- bz2 valgrind-patch3:0.57s no: 3.4s ( 5.9x, -----) me: 8.6s (15.1x, -----) bz2 valgrind-patch4:0.57s no: 3.4s ( 6.0x, -0.9%) me: 8.6s (15.1x, -0.2%) -- fbench -- fbench valgrind-patch3:0.25s no: 1.7s ( 6.7x, -----) me: 4.3s (17.3x, -----) fbench valgrind-patch4:0.25s no: 1.7s ( 6.8x, -1.8%) me: 4.3s (17.3x, -0.2%) -- ffbench -- ffbench valgrind-patch3:0.19s no: 0.7s ( 3.6x, -----) me: 1.8s ( 9.6x, -----) ffbench valgrind-patch4:0.19s no: 0.7s ( 3.6x, 0.0%) me: 1.8s ( 9.6x, 0.5%) -- heap -- heap valgrind-patch3:0.25s no: 1.7s ( 6.9x, -----) me: 7.5s (29.9x, -----) heap valgrind-patch4:0.25s no: 1.7s ( 6.8x, 1.2%) me: 7.5s (29.8x, 0.4%) -- heap_pdb4 -- heap_pdb4 valgrind-patch3:0.29s no: 1.8s ( 6.3x, -----) me:10.8s (37.2x, -----) heap_pdb4 valgrind-patch4:0.29s no: 1.8s ( 6.3x, 0.0%) me:10.8s (37.3x, -0.1%) -- many-loss-records -- many-loss-records valgrind-patch3:0.03s no: 0.4s (13.3x, -----) me: 1.6s (55.0x, -----) many-loss-records valgrind-patch4:0.03s no: 0.4s (13.7x, -2.5%) me: 1.7s (55.3x, -0.6%) -- many-xpts -- many-xpts valgrind-patch3:0.05s no: 0.6s (11.4x, -----) me: 2.2s (44.0x, -----) many-xpts valgrind-patch4:0.05s no: 0.6s (11.4x, 0.0%) me: 2.2s (43.6x, 0.9%) -- memrw -- memrw valgrind-patch3:0.05s no: 0.8s (17.0x, -----) me: 1.9s (39.0x, -----) memrw valgrind-patch4:0.05s no: 0.8s (16.8x, 1.2%) me: 2.0s (39.2x, -0.5%) -- sarp -- sarp valgrind-patch3:0.02s no: 0.3s (16.0x, -----) me: 2.5s (125.5x, -----) sarp valgrind-patch4:0.02s no: 0.3s (16.0x, 0.0%) me: 2.5s (125.5x, 0.0%) -- tinycc -- tinycc valgrind-patch3:0.21s no: 2.3s (11.0x, -----) me:10.1s (48.2x, -----) tinycc valgrind-patch4:0.21s no: 2.3s (11.0x, 0.0%) me:10.3s (49.1x, -1.9%) -- Finished tests in perf ---------------------------------------------- == 12 programs, 48 timings ================= I investigated the second comment by running the requested test. After fixing a bug that was found found with some missing register support, it ran fine. After some private discussions with Julian, the is_BCDstring(), increment_BCDstring(), and the support for bcdctz., bcdctn., bcdcfz., bcdcfn., bcdsetsgn.instructions were reimplemented using clean helpers. The minor comments:. There is no change in the functions, putCR321 and putCR0. They were unswapped so there is no change in the patch. The duplicated code was replaced with a temp. The typos were fixed. Note, it was found that one of the instructions in the test suite was missing. The test suite was updated. The VEX support patch and test suite patch have been updated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
