Re: my crude benchmark results

[James Damour <jdamour at nycap dot rr dot com>]

Following the advice of the list, I've got new test results (with 263
iterations instead of 100 iterations, so all result times can be
compared to those of Mr. Gabriele (err, John:).  The difference in the C
code execution time I chalk up to noise.  The Java code execution is
about 5% faster.

I *also* happen to have a copy of the java-gui-branch of GCJ v3.5 from
CVS.  In the last set of runs, it didn't do so hot so I dropped it, but
look at it with the --fast-math flas!  I'm thinking that the bounds
check isn't as important an optimization as the fast math functions.

GCJ v3.5 CVS (java-gui-branch) (gcj Main.java --main=Main -O3
-save-temps --fast-math -fno-bounds-check -o java3.5.cvs-fast.exe; time
./java3.5.cvs-fast.exe)
real    0m4.298s
user    0m4.126s
sys     0m0.016s

GCJ v3.5 CVS (java-gui-branch) (gcj Main.java --main=Main -O3
--fast-math -o java3.5.cvs-fast-wb.exe; time ./java3.5.cvs-fast-wb.exe)
real    0m4.323s
user    0m4.246s
sys     0m0.009s

GCC v3.3.4 (gcc -o c-fast.exe -lm -ffast-math benchmark.c; time
./c-fast.exe)
real    0m8.549s
user    0m8.477s
sys     0m0.003s

GCJ v3.3.4 (gcj Main.java --main=Main -O3 -save-temps --fast-math
-fno-bounds-check -o java3.3.4-fast.exe; time ./java3.3.4-fast.exe)
real    0m15.811s
user    0m15.466s
sys     0m0.021s

GCJ v3.5 CVS (java-gui-branch) (gcj Main.java --main=Main -O3 -o
java3.5.cvs-slow.exe; time ./java3.5.cvs-slow.exe)
real    0m35.503s
user    0m35.135s
sys     0m0.015s

-- 
James Damour (Suvarov454) <suvarov454@users.sourceforge.net>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part