On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 12:29, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > With all current optimizations[1] I now have these timings: > > $ ./bench -b=^oo[234f] > Numbers are relative to the first one. (lower is better) > p-j-Oc perl-th perl python ruby > oo2 100% 182% 152% 90% 132% > oo3 100% 276% 256% 333% 383%
That looks suspicious... especially Python. It smells there's some lazy evaluation going on here, and that object doesn't get fully instantiated until oo3. I suspect, in that light, that the numbers aren't quite as bad for Parrot as they look in oo2, nor as good for Parrot as the look in oo3 (well, maybe as good as they look, but not as bad... I have to think about that). > $ time CALL__BUILD=1 parrot -j oo2b.pasm > real 0m2.566s > vs 0m2.630s for oo2.pasm > (w.o any of these optimizations oo2b takes 3.9s) I would suggest using iterations that go much longer so that you can detect over-optimizations and such more easily. Very nice! -- Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith "It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback
