From: Steven Cole <scole@lanl.gov>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: UP 2.2.18 makes kernels 3% faster than UP 2.4.0-test12
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:36:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00121013363704.01067@spc.esa.lanl.gov> (raw)
Aaron Tiensivu wrote:
>| 2.2.18-pre26 was compiled with gcc 2.91.66 (kgcc).
>| 2.4.0-test12-pre7 was compiled with gcc 2.95.3.
>
>That's your answer right there.
>GCC 2.95.3 compiles much slower than kgcc.
>
>Rerun the 2.4.0 with kgcc to be fair. :)
Actually, it is fair. There are really two results,
1) 309 sec for 2.2.18p26 vs 318 sec for 2.4.0t12p7 where the
task was building 2.2.18p26 using kgcc.
2) 444 sec for 2.2.18p26 vs 457.3 sec for 2.4.0t12p7 where the
task was building 2.4.0t12p7 using gcc.
In each case, the task and the tools used are the same. The
only difference was the kernel used. In both cases, 2.2.18 won by 3%. Its
comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Granted 3% isn't
very much, but I would have guessed that 2.4.0 would have been the
winner. It wasn't, at least for this single processor machine.
Now, if you're saying that 2.4.0-test12 will get the job done faster when
compiled using kgcc, that's something else. I'll try that out to see if it
makes a difference.
Steven
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next reply other threads:[~2000-12-10 21:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-12-10 20:36 Steven Cole [this message]
2000-12-11 18:16 ` John Fremlin
2000-12-11 18:38 ` Rik van Riel
2000-12-11 18:46 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-11 19:50 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2000-12-11 20:15 ` Arjan van de Ven
2000-12-11 20:23 ` Rik van Riel
2000-12-11 22:03 ` Gerhard Mack
2000-12-11 22:06 ` Alan Cox
2000-12-13 9:44 ` Rogier Wolff
2000-12-14 13:08 ` Russell King
2000-12-16 0:40 ` george anzinger
2000-12-12 14:49 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 18:18 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 18:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-12-12 20:19 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 20:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-12-12 22:09 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-11 22:12 ` Gabor Lenart
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-12-10 15:31 Steven Cole
2000-12-10 19:52 ` Aaron Tiensivu
2000-12-11 23:02 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 4:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2000-12-12 5:17 ` Steven Cole
2000-12-12 5:20 ` Mike Galbraith
2000-12-12 11:01 ` Helge Hafting
2000-12-12 10:27 ` Rik van Riel
2000-12-12 14:15 ` Mike Galbraith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=00121013363704.01067@spc.esa.lanl.gov \
--to=scole@lanl.gov \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®