Ted Leung wrote:
John Anderson wrote:
Here are my conclusions: Although these results don't explain the
whole story, the XP/Intel Chandler launch advantage of 3.5 seems like
it could be entirely be explained by the difference in C performance.
Furthermore, a significant part of this advantage is due to the
Microsoft compiler. There are more tests that would be interesting to
do: profile the C code in Chandler to see where time is spent during
launch and other time consuming tasks. Run tests on the Intel Macs.
Measure how much IO is involved running Chandler. Construct some
Berkeley DB benchmarks and measure them on the different platforms.
Finally, Given Moore's law, the current state of Chandler, and its
probable lifetime (assuming it's successful), performance probably
won't be a significant obstacle to adoption.
Is it worthwhile trying to compile some of the smaller benchmarks on
Windows using gcc to get some idea of how bad off we are using GCC?
We could do release builds on the mac using either the IBM XLC
compiler or on Mac OS intel using intel's compiler
Measuring gcc performance on Windows is a good idea. This would validate
my assumption that the Linux gcc disadvantage is due to gcc and not Linux.
It might also be worth doing some tests to see how the IBM or Intel
compilers compare to Apple's gcc. Googling makes the topic look interesting:
http://www.open-mag.com/features/Vol_15/IntelC/intelc.htm
Ted
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
