On 02/03/2012 14:52, "Antoine Pitrou" <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> >Did you compare the actual code sizes? The `size` command can help you >with that. I'd never used `size` before... Thanks for the tip; looks like the Intel build is actually smaller..? :/ # ICC version (`ls -lh` ==> 4.7MB) $ size ./python text data bss dec hex filename 1659760 276904 63760 2000424 1e8628 ./python # System version (`ls -lhH` ==>2.7MB) $ size /usr/bin/python text data bss dec hex filename 2303805 427728 74808 2806341 2ad245 /usr/bin/python I definitely don't get what's going on here! Does this information relate to linked objects being in shared or static libs? Is this indicative anything, either good or bad? > >That's an extremely silly benchmark, unlikely to be representative of >any actual Python workload. I suggest you try a less-trivial benchmark >suite, such as: http://hg.python.org/benchmarks/ lol, yes it is a silly benchmark! Still, when I first started compiling python, without any optimisation options, this silly little script took up to 6-8x more time to process than the default GCC version. (~17s cf. <3s). And the script hardly took that long to write! Thanks for the benchmark recommendation; I'll use that on the next build - hopefully after passing the math tests! Cheers, Alex > _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
