On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Szak�ts Viktor wrote: > > Thank you very much for test but I asked about reverted test. I want to > > compare harbour-gc2 + speedtst-gc2 with harbour-gc3 + speedtst-gc2. > > Can you send also harbour-gc3 + speedtst-gc2. > Sorry, I didn't explain the filenames: > Harbour -gc3 + speedtst -gc2 (yesterday's builds): > st-hb-icc-gc2.txt > st-hb-msvc-gc2.txt > st-hb-mingw433-gc2.txt > Harbour -gc2 + speedtst -gc2 (recent builds): > st-hb-msvc-gc2-gc2.txt > st-hb-mingw433-gc2-gc2.txt
Viktor, 2-3 degrees difference in room temperature has noticeable speed overhead for modern computers and I do not joke. It's documented by CPU producers. Test should be done in as close period of time as possible or repeated many times in long periods to well catch average results. I can believe in many different things but I do not belive that: 03/19/09 23:05:24 Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3 Harbour-gc2+speedtst-gc2 gives: [ T000: empty loop overhead ]...................................0.06 Harbour-gc3+speedtst-gc2 gives: 03/19/09 23:45:50 Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3 [ T000: empty loop overhead ]...................................0.11 :-) The 1-st one for sure in not yesterday's builds and for sure speedtst was not compiled with -gc2 but with -gc3 in this test. No offence but I think that in similar way you found that -ko gives slower code what is technically impossible because it only reduce the code a little bit by stripping some dummy expressions or replacing: <exp> 1 plus with: <exp> inc Anyhow now I would like to should you sth funny what can help you in the future in checking the results. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
