This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: give me back performance on sixtrack

From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:11:35 +0200
Subject: Re: give me back performance on sixtrack
References: <20050903163636.GA5379@napoca.cri.ensmp.fr> <20050909105349.GA3826@napoca.cri.ensmp.fr> <4325C042.1040502@codesourcery.com> <200509122011.29671.stevenb@suse.de> <4325C797.3000609@codesourcery.com> <20050913074508.GA8576@napoca.Belkin>

I have no idea why there are such big differences, other than heat?
uptime?  Why have I obtained a score of 668 in the first run?  All
these run time evaluations are difficult to interpret, and they
reflect not only the performance of the compiler but also the state of
the whole machine, operating system and hardware.

Never do measurements on a laptop. :-( Or you can use oprofile, so at least the event source slows down with the program...

Paolo

Follow-Ups:
- Re: give me back performance on sixtrack
  - From: Jeffrey A Law

References:
- give me back performance on sixtrack
  - From: Sebastian Pop
- Re: give me back performance on sixtrack
  - From: Sebastian Pop
- Re: give me back performance on sixtrack
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: give me back performance on sixtrack
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: give me back performance on sixtrack
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: give me back performance on sixtrack
  - From: Sebastian Pop

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]