>But two guys have answer that it can be compiler optimation. no: i said `it requires investigation'. several others seemed to be `speculating ahead of the data'. in fact, without asking for data of any sort. no: must be those compilers. indeed, given the little data we had (binary trees and thus [probably] recursive calls) i was hinting that it was UNLIKELY to be compiler related, and the factor of 10 was likely to be significant, but i still wanted the data.
but instead, someone grabs that off-hand remark and runs with it: >So, plan 9 wasnt made for, hmm, heavy computing tasks, like 2 milions of calls >of recursive functions >working with some complex data structure (not my data structure, hehe), or >something like that? back to work...
