Re: benchmark result

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Mathieu Lacage writes:
 > On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 16:07 +0100, Mathieu Lacage wrote:
 > > On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 13:56 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > > We could improve the performance of these collection classes with
 > > > little work.  What is required is someone to study the code, do some
 > > > profiling, and fix things.
 > > 
 > > I will look into this when I find some time.
 > 
 > I tried to replace my iterators by getters on the critical paths of the
 > code. The patch itself is rather simple and I found the results
 > interesting...

Could you let me know what you changed?  A diff or somesuch?

 > jdk 1.4.2 before:
 > real 7.88
 > user 7.64
 > sys 0.08
 > 
 > jdk 1.4.2 after:
 > real 10.12
 > user 9.86
 > sys 0.05
 > 
 > jdk 1.5.0 before:
 > real 11.27
 > user 10.89
 > sys 0.11
 > 
 > jdk 1.4.2 after:
 > real 14.10
 > user 13.78
 > sys 0.06
 > 
 > gcc 4.0.0 has been built with USE_MARK_BYTES, code has been compiled
 > with -ffast-math -mtune=pentium4 -O2
 > 
 > gcc 4.0.0 before:
 > real 8.65
 > user 8.41
 > sys 0.05
 > 
 > gcc 4.0.0 after:
 > real 5.75
 > user 5.20
 > sys 0.04
 > 
 > So, now, I get the most performance out of gcj by far when I optimize
 > the code for it but I must say I am rather unhappy with the idea of de-
 > optimizing my code for the sun jdks...

Well, the models are rather different, so perhaps you wouldn't expect
something better on one also to be better on another.

Andrew.