On Sun, 16 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> With Win 9x, yes. I believe NT tends to allocate from the bottom up.
Nope, NT is top down as well. This caused an issue with early PII
chips as well, not only could they only cache 512M, but there was a bug in
the cache controller if you ad
>> If you find ReCache doesn't work for you - even on a Windoze machine -
>> then I'm sorry, but you do have the option not to use it!
>
>This really sounds like it's a result of Intel's policy of making their
>chipsets as cheap as possible.
>It's a well known problem that several of the widely us
On Sat, 15 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Me neither, so far as linux is concerned.
>
> I did find that ReCache "worked" in the sense of at least making things
> no worse on a wide selection of systems running Win 9x & NT. It had least
> effect on systems which had minimal physical memory,
>I've ported ReCache to Linux, and tested it out. Oddly enough, it didn't help.
>I'm not sure if I've ported the spawnl() call in a wrong way (I'm doing a
>fork() and then an exec()), but it certainly doesn't help (the iteration
>time goes up from 0.201 to 0.203 secs). Perhaps the Linux MM is bett
Brian (and any list members that might be interested):
I've ported ReCache to Linux, and tested it out. Oddly enough, it didn't help.
I'm not sure if I've ported the spawnl() call in a wrong way (I'm doing a
fork() and then an exec()), but it certainly doesn't help (the iteration
time goes up fro
Hello,
I've compiled mprime on my own (after doing some minor changes to make it
compile under glibc2), and I've noticed something strange. If I run the program
with -m, and use `Test/Continue', I get an iteration time of 0.201 secs
(n=7398xxx, P2/400 overclocked to 448MHz (bus=112MHz, multiplier
