Bugzilla #434 shows a x11perf regression test between 4.3.0 and a rather
current CVS versions. The performance of some tests has gone down by
20% for a specific test, some other tests have suffered a performance
penalty of 3%.
There may be a simple explanation for this however I can't find it
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:25:40AM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
Bugzilla #434 shows a x11perf regression test between 4.3.0 and a rather
current CVS versions. The performance of some tests has gone down by
20% for a specific test, some other tests have suffered a performance
penalty of 3%.
There
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:46:30 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:25:40AM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
Bugzilla #434 shows a x11perf regression test between 4.3.0 and a rather
current CVS versions. The performance of some tests has gone down by
20% for a specific test, some
On 2003.07.08 06:46, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:25:40AM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
Bugzilla #434 shows a x11perf regression test between 4.3.0 and a
rather
current CVS versions. The performance of some tests has gone down by
20% for a specific test, some other tests have
On 2003.07.08 04:25, Egbert Eich wrote:
Bugzilla #434 shows a x11perf regression test between 4.3.0 and a
rather
current CVS versions. The performance of some tests has gone down by
20% for a specific test, some other tests have suffered a performance
penalty of 3%.
There may be a simple
Oh sorry for the bad format of the post, bad numbers are in attachment.
Bye
Manu109000.086300.0 ( 0.79) Fill 1x1 aa trapezoid
45300.040400.0 ( 0.89) Fill 10x10 aa trapezoid
30300.025100.0 ( 0.83) 10-pixel wide partial circle
472000.0 403000.0 ( 0.85) Destroy
Looks like a code generation issue. P4's will do that sometimes
when you change the alignment of particular functions/structures.
The graphics driver probably has nothing to do with it since the
worst regressions don't involve graphics.
Mark.
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003,
