On Tue, Feb 01, 2011, Tzafrir Cohen wrote about "Re: New Freecell Solver
gcc-4.5.0 vs. LLVM+clang Benchmark":
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:49:00PM +0200, Elazar Leibovich wrote:
>
> > The program they tested[1] is strictly CPU bound. BTW, standard deviation
> > w
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: New Freecell Solver
gcc-4.5.0 vs. LLVM+clang Benchmark":
> awareness. It's a far cry from saying that computers are "not deterministic"
> though. If you want to measure A and in fact you measure something
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:49:00PM +0200, Elazar Leibovich wrote:
> The program they tested[1] is strictly CPU bound. BTW, standard deviation
> wouldn't work as well, but it shows (I think) that there's no such think as
> "ideal minimal runtime".
>
> [1]
> static int i = 0, j = 0, k = 0;
> int m
2011/2/1 Elazar Leibovich
>
> See this paper[2] which is referred in the slides.
>
> [2] http://www-plan.cs.colorado.edu/diwan/asplos09.pdf
This morning I took part in a meeting here at work where something related
was discussed, so I am hot for the topic. Apologies all around.
The paper you r
On Tuesday 01 Feb 2011 12:09:17 Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011, Elazar Leibovich wrote about "Re: New Freecell Solver
gcc-4.5.0 vs. LLVM+clang Benchmark":
> > Long story short, he claims there that modern computers are now highly
> > non-deterministic, he
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> But if he runs his deterministic application 5 times and gets 5 different
> durations, each duration is composed of the deterministic run-time of
> the application plus a random delay caused by other things on the system.
> The *minimum* of th
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011, Elazar Leibovich wrote about "Re: New Freecell Solver
gcc-4.5.0 vs. LLVM+clang Benchmark":
> Long story short, he claims there that modern computers are now highly
> non-deterministic, he demonstrated 20% running time variation by the same
> JVM runnin
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> Imagine, for example, that you run a certain program 5 times and get the
> times: 20.0, 18.0, 18.1, 27.0, 18.1
> Evidently, the first run was slower because things were not in the cache,
> and the run that took 27.0 was delayed by some other
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010, Elazar Leibovich wrote about "Re: New Freecell Solver
> gcc-4.5.0 vs. LLVM+clang Benchmark":
> > The standard deviation can give you an estimation of the minimal running
> > time. (99
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010, Elazar Leibovich wrote about "Re: New Freecell Solver
gcc-4.5.0 vs. LLVM+clang Benchmark":
> The standard deviation can give you an estimation of the minimal running
> time. (99. of the samples are within X standard deviations below the
> average. Pick
The standard deviation can give you an estimation of the minimal running
time. (99. of the samples are within X standard deviations below the
average. Pick a high enough relative to the number of times you'll run
the software, and you'll get an estimation of the minimum running time
you'll
On Sunday 18 Jul 2010 11:56:33 Elazar Leibovich wrote:
> While you're on to it.
> I expect to read in a benchmark report, the number of time the software was
> executed, the mean running time, and the standard deviation. Running and
> timing it once can hide a pretty large error.
>
Perhaps you're
On Sunday 18 Jul 2010 11:37:17 Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Hi Nadav,
>
> On Sunday 18 Jul 2010 10:03:32 Nadav Har'El wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010, Shlomi Fish wrote about "New Freecell Solver
> > gcc-4.5.0
>
> vs. LLVM+clang Benchmark":
> > > On the other hand, with gcc-4.5.0 with "-flto" and "-fwhol
While you're on to it.
I expect to read in a benchmark report, the number of time the software was
executed, the mean running time, and the standard deviation. Running and
timing it once can hide a pretty large error.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Hi Nadav,
>
> On Sunday
Hi Nadav,
On Sunday 18 Jul 2010 10:03:32 Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010, Shlomi Fish wrote about "New Freecell Solver gcc-4.5.0
vs. LLVM+clang Benchmark":
> > On the other hand, with gcc-4.5.0 with "-flto" and "-fwhole-program"
> > Freecell Solver ran at 85.1303749084473 seconds.
> >
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010, Shlomi Fish wrote about "New Freecell Solver gcc-4.5.0
vs. LLVM+clang Benchmark":
> On the other hand, with gcc-4.5.0 with "-flto" and "-fwhole-program" Freecell
> Solver ran at 85.1303749084473 seconds.
>
> I admit that I ran the gcc benchmark with a good renice and only
16 matches
Mail list logo
