> Four incremental patch files are attached. They are used as follows. Thank you very much.
I made the comparison report. Program |Output of time(2) |difference with current ---------------+----------------------------------------------+----------------------- current cvs |128.84 real 84.77 user 16.75 sys| 100% real% builtin-parser | 97.45 real 63.85 user 6.73 sys| 75% real% -25% external-writer|100.93 real 65.07 user 6.98 sys| 78% real% +3% 2pass-parsing | 75.60 real 44.29 user 4.99 sys| 58% real% -17% 1pass-parsing | 58.58 real 27.79 user 4.17 sys| 45% real% -13% ---------------+----------------------------------------------+----------------------- (Target source code: linux-2.6.21.3) The builtin-parser, 2pass-pasing and 1pass-parsing are great improvements. I was not able to recognize significant of external-writer. I tested the 1pass-parsing without external-writer too. But the result was same. 58.58 real 27.79 user 4.17 sys 1pass-parsing) 57.64 real 26.45 user 3.88 sys (1pass-parsing without external-writer) I do not think that external-writer is significant, because: o It does not improve efficiency too much. o It requires external programs. It complicates the program itself, and makes it difficult to measure the performance of the program. Though it might be effective in a multi-processing environment, other processors should be left for other programs if there is no great reason, I think. Anyway, these are great improvements. Thank you again. -- Shigio YAMAGUCHI <[email protected]> PGP fingerprint: D1CB 0B89 B346 4AB6 5663 C4B6 3CA5 BBB3 57BE DDA3 _______________________________________________ Bug-global mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-global
