2010/4/3 John M McIntosh <[email protected]> > > On 2010-04-03, at 9:27 AM, laurent laffont wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks to people who send the results of tinyBenchmarks for various CPU, > here's the report. > > What I want to know is whether these results are crap or "normal". It seems > that all people succeed in compiling the VM with the source provided. So it > may be a candidate for Pharo 1.0 ? > > The procedure to build the VM was: > > wget > http://lolgzs.free.fr/pharo/squeak-vm/Squeak-3.11.3.2135-pharo-src.tar.gz > tar -xvzf Squeak-3.11.3.2135-pharo-src.tar.gz > cd Squeak-3.11.3.2135-pharo-src/ > mkdir build && cd build > ../unix/cmake/configure --CFLAGS="-O2" > make > > The results: > > Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 @ 2.40GHz > 64 bits > =============================================== > 432 M bytecodes/sec; 13 M sends/sec > > > Optimal on a Intel(r) Core(TM)2 duo CPU @ 2.33Ghz is > 587 M bytecodes/sec; 14.7 M sends/sec >
Is "Optimal" means special CFLAGS, GCC version / Intel compiler, or source code changes ? I understand you cannot tell how you optimize the VM. But with the VM source I provide, maybe you can tell that compiling it with your "secret weapons" you obtain near optimal results ? Laurent Laffont > > -- > =========================================================================== > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
