Please note this could be a problem with the Windows VM you are using. Please check with the Windows VM suport person for guidance if the numbers appear rational for the machine you are using.
In general the tinybenchmark reports how good the compiler choices has optimized the main interpreter loop, or points out the inability of the Squeak VM to get 100% of the CPU when running the benchmark, or points out that the image is running lots of higher priority smalltalk process that interfere with the benchmark. But in general I would expect a Squeak image or a Pharo image to post the name numbers when using the same VM on the same machine. Obviously someone could confirm that. On 2009-12-18, at 2:28 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > No problem. > > >> Hi Stef, >> I dind't see your email until today, when I came back to this topic! Don't >> know why it was marked as read :(. >> Just to report the same test under Vista (obviously, on the same machine). >> >> '225948808 bytecodes/sec; 6804203 sends/sec' >> > > they are coherent with the previous ones. > >> '533333333 bytecodes/sec; 12157397 sends/sec' > > and clearly and indication that we should get also slower machines to kick us > to optimize > or rethink certain decisions. > > Stef -- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh <[email protected]> Twitter: squeaker68882 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com =========================================================================== _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
