In message <4d7a42cc.8020...@freebsd.org>, Martin Matuska writes:
>But what I can say, e.g. for the Intel Atom processor, if there are
>performance gains in all but one test (that falls 2% behind), generic
>perl code (the routines benchmarked) on this processor is very likely to
>run faster with t
I don't take this personally and fully understand your point.
But even if all conditions you described are met, I am still not able to
say "this is better" as I am not doing a microbenchmark. The +x% score
is just an average of all test scores weightened by factor 1 - this does
not reflect any rea
Quoting Martin Matuska (from Thu, 10 Mar 2011
22:33:37 +0100):
Hi everyone,
we have performed a benchmark of the perl binary compiled with base gcc,
ports gcc and ports clang using the perlbench benchmark suite.
Our benchmark was performed solely on amd64 with 10 different processors
and we
In message <4d7943b1.1030...@freebsd.org>, Martin Matuska writes:
>More information, detailed test results and test configuration are at
>our blog:
>http://blog.vx.sk/archives/25-FreeBSD-Compiler-Benchmark-gcc-base-vs-gcc-ports-vs-clang.html
Please don't take this personally Martin, but you have
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:33:37PM +0100, Martin Matuska wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> we have performed a benchmark of the perl binary compiled with base gcc,
> ports gcc and ports clang using the perlbench benchmark suite.
> Our benchmark was performed solely on amd64 with 10 different processors
>
