On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 09:27:17PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > --optimize may be broken. I tried it with a clean parrot source and
>
>
> The ellipses should have been placeholders for other options. I
> configure mine with:
>
> perl Configure.pl --floatval=double --debugging --optimize
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 01:53:11PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Did you have an optimized parrot compile?
>
> ( make progclean ; perl Configure.pl ... --optimize ; make -s)
--optimize may be broken. I tried it with a clean parrot source and
I still get cc -g like so:
perl pmc2c.pl coroutine.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 04:03:40AM -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote:
> FYI...all three used the identical algorithm taken from the primes.pasm
> example complete with labels and gotos(makes for very disconcerting perl
> code). Startup times and printf times were not significant in any of the
> cases(
On my system, the perl takes 2.24 second and the python takes 3.76 seconds.
You are correct that the 2 versions I send out earlier are *very*
different. I started from two places, the primes.pasm which I converted
to C and perl versions and a pre-existing primes.py and primes.c that I
converted
Hello!
Benchmarks are idiosyncratic and devious and I thank you for starting a
comparison whose results interest me greatly. =]
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 10:03, Tupshin Harper wrote:
> [...]and some are in languages I am less then fluent in
> (last touched any flavor of assembly in 1985, and barely
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 10:58:59PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I think --optimize alone is busted.
>
>
> Probably my fault, when introducing this option. I did test only with
> --debugging.
No no no. You're supposed to test with -march=... -fomit-frame-pointe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think --optimize alone is busted.
Probably my fault, when introducing this option. I did test only with
--debugging.
leo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 01:53:11PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Did you have an optimized parrot compile?
( make progclean ; perl Configure.pl ... --optimize ; make -s)
--optimize may be broken. I tried it with a clean parrot source and
The ellipses should have
Tupshin Harper wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Did you have an optimized parrot compile?
( make progclean ; perl Configure.pl ... --optimize ; make -s)
No I hadn't, but I just did, using those exact commands(no additional
options to Configure.pl), and had no perceivable performance change
u
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 04:03:40AM -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote:
FYI...all three used the identical algorithm taken from the primes.pasm
example complete with labels and gotos(makes for very disconcerting perl
code). Startup times and printf times were not significant
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Did you have an optimized parrot compile?
( make progclean ; perl Configure.pl ... --optimize ; make -s)
No I hadn't, but I just did, using those exact commands(no additional
options to Configure.pl), and had no perceivable performance change
using any of the parrot va
Tupshin Harper wrote:
In case anyone is interested.
Always :)
Did you have an optimized parrot compile?
( make progclean ; perl Configure.pl ... --optimize ; make -s)
-Tupshin
Code available if anybody cares.
Yes please.
TIA,
leo
In case anyone is interested.
On a whim I took the primes.pasm example from the parrot examples page
and converted it to both c and perl5, with _interesting_ results.
Timing all three with a max of 100,000 produced the following results:
c -primes.c(lickety split):
real0m7.710s
user
13 matches
Mail list logo
