Hi, Matt.
Its a definitively BAD idea do NOT enable optimaslizations fior 68k...
Please, can it be next time enabled?
No. Enabling the optimizers in SAS/C just makes the build process take
about 1000 times longer than it would do normally - and SAS/C's
optimizers are frankly shitty (any
--- Reply to a message ---
By: Oliver Wagner
-: a Mail
:: [voyager] Re: latest V beta damned slow?!
Enabling optimizers in SAS/C will not make V any faster.
This is not true :)
can voyager be faster ? :-)
where is the news plugin now
--
Benny Pedersen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hello Oliver
On 02-Aug-01, you wrote:
Hello Matt,
Enabling optimizers in SAS/C will not make V any faster.
This is not true :)
Well.. lets put it a better way then. There are more optimisations
to be made in V (Zapek and I discussed those layout problems
at length) than any SAS/C
...
No. Optimizations are NOT being enabled AT ALL - FOR ANY 68k BETA!
..even as a internal test to see benefits?
There are no benefits, since it's not going to happen.
And why not? Its just about checking the checkmark into compiler,
to make it optimize the generated code for 060, and
On 2. august 2001, Trodas wrote:
And why not? Its just about checking the checkmark into compiler,
to make it optimize the generated code for 060, and viola - things will be
much faster, nicer and shorter.
And you know this because you tried it? Anyway, it's not going to
happen with any
Hello Trodas
On 02-Aug-01, you wrote:
We are allowed to ask WHY not, and tell you, programmers, many very
strong reasons WHY we, users, WOULD like to see the Voyager fly
and not crawl...
You are allowed to ask :)
Enabling optimizers in SAS/C will not make V any faster. So it's not
going
...and back to you, Matt:
so far. Go offline. There is no traffic left to handle. Yet AmigaLoad
displays the processor load near 100%, with V causing the vast majority.
Uhm, why?
The garbage collector has to go through and safely dispose of a large
heirarchy of objects (the window all the
hi,
No. Optimizations are NOT being enabled AT ALL - FOR ANY 68k BETA!
..even as a internal test to see benefits?
..so why not compile the 68k version with GCC? :-)
Because the 68k build doesn't compile under GCC.
..any particular reason why? (format of inline assembler etc - or more
Hello Alan
On 01-Aug-01, you wrote:
hi,
No. Optimizations are NOT being enabled AT ALL - FOR ANY 68k BETA!
..even as a internal test to see benefits?
There are no benefits, since it's not going to happen.
Because the 68k build doesn't compile under GCC.
..any particular reason
If I may allow myself to butt in here and come back to the actual subject
line... :)
No. Optimizations are NOT being enabled AT ALL - FOR ANY 68k BETA!
Optimizing apart, sometimes it is amazing how CPU intensive (thus slowing
down everything) the current V beta can be without apparent reason.
Hello Markus
On 31-Jul-01, you wrote:
so far. Go offline. There is no traffic left to handle. Yet AmigaLoad
displays the processor load near 100%, with V causing the vast majority.
Uhm, why?
The garbage collector has to go through and safely dispose of a large
heirarchy of objects (the
...
am I the only one (maybe a problem of my system?),
but I've the impression that the latest beta of V³
is really slow.
No you're not, same here. Think it's because it isn't optimized yet and has
all the debug code in it.
Slow when doing what ? Layouting ? Scrolling ? Please
Hello Trodas
On 31-Jul-01, you wrote:
Its a definitively BAD idea do NOT enable optimaslizations fior 68k...
Please, can it be next time enabled?
No. Enabling the optimizers in SAS/C just makes the build process take
about 1000 times longer than it would do normally - and SAS/C's
optimizers
In a message of 31-Jul-01 Matt wrote:
No. Enabling the optimizers in SAS/C just makes the build process take
about 1000 times longer than it would do normally - and SAS/C's
optimizers are frankly shitty (any performance increase really is
marginal, not worth it at all)
I once compiled
hi,
No. Enabling the optimizers in SAS/C just makes the build process take
about 1000 times longer than it would do normally - and SAS/C's
optimizers are frankly shitty (any performance increase really is
marginal, not worth it at all)
cant you just let it compile overnight??
the job
Hello Alan
On 31-Jul-01, you wrote:
No. Enabling the optimizers in SAS/C just makes the build process take
about 1000 times longer than it would do normally - and SAS/C's
optimizers are frankly shitty (any performance increase really is
marginal, not worth it at all)
cant you just let
Hello Jools
On 30-Jul-01, you wrote:
certainly i would like the ability to set my own priorites for voyagers
processes. as you can in ibrowse to a certain extent. (yes i do run executive
but i would stil like to lower default priorities of voyager)
And what would that give you?
Control
Hello Jools
On 30-Jul-01, you wrote:
http://www.rtguide.beeb.com/ListingsServlet?event=13broadcastType=1jspGridLocation=/jsp/tv_listings_grid.jspjspListLocation=/jsp/tv_listings_list.jspjspError=/
of course this page just falls foul of the fact that layout is unoptimized such
that every
Hello Matt
On 30-Jul-01, Matt wrote:
Hello Jools
Have you tried unscheduling V (TASK+CHILDTASKS) for a while to see
if it makes a massive difference?
i test voyager on a multitude of amigas from 020-060 some with executive
some without. i dont notice any real speed difference when
Have you tried unscheduling V (TASK+CHILDTASKS) for a while to see
if it makes a massive difference?
i test voyager on a multitude of amigas from 020-060 some with executive
some without. i dont notice any real speed difference when running under
executive, as it gives main priority to
Hello Jools
On 30-Jul-01, you wrote:
Hello Matt
On 30-Jul-01, Matt wrote:
Have you tried unscheduling V (TASK+CHILDTASKS) for a while to see
if it makes a massive difference?
i test voyager on a multitude of amigas from 020-060 some with executive
some without. i dont notice any
--- Reply to a message ---
By: David Gerber
-: a Mail
:: [voyager] Re: [voyager] Re: latest V³ beta damned slow?!
Executive running or not shouldn't matter. Besides, V has dedicated
Executive support for optimizing the relative task priorities. So the
problem is somewhere else.
i have
Hello Norbert!
On 29-Jul-01, you wrote:
am I the only one (maybe a problem of my system?),
but I've the impression that the latest beta of V³
is really slow.
No you're not, same here. Think it's because it isn't optimized yet and has
all the debug code in it.
--
// MfG, David
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:29:56 +0200, David Scheibler wrote:
am I the only one (maybe a problem of my system?),
but I've the impression that the latest beta of V³
is really slow.
No you're not, same here. Think it's because it isn't optimized yet and has
all the debug code in it.
Slow
24 matches
Mail list logo
