PS. just tripped over this:
http://math-atlas.sourceforge.net/errata.html
Gcc 4.2 is has a performance bug that normally cuts performance in
half. ATLAS works around this by throwing the flags:
-fno-schedule-insns -fno-rerun-loop-opt
Maybe you're seeing this issue.
Christian.
--
To U
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 04:26:27PM +0200, Michel Dänzer a écrit :
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 23:17 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Another example I have is a map website by Yahoo Japan:
http://map.yahoo.co.jp/pl?type=scroll&lat=35.35961995&lon=138.73361576&sc=7&mode=map&
Christian Jaeger wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ time perl -we 'defined(fork) or die; for(1..1000) {
$z++ } print "$z\n"; wait'
1000
1000
real0m0.766s
user0m0.768s
sys0m0.000s
Sorry, this number should have been (I did forget the wait call first
and then added it without
Le Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 04:26:27PM +0200, Michel Dänzer a écrit :
> On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 23:17 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > Another example I have is a map website by Yahoo Japan:
> > http://map.yahoo.co.jp/pl?type=scroll&lat=35.35961995&lon=138.73361576&sc=7&mode=map&pointer=on
> > With Ic
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 23:17 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:10:02AM +0200, Michel Dänzer a écrit :
> > On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 10:24 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/PowerPC-AltiVec-Built_002din-Functions.html
> >
> > These flags are prer
Le Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:10:02AM +0200, Michel Dänzer a écrit :
> On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 10:24 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/PowerPC-AltiVec-Built_002din-Functions.html
>
> These flags are prerequisites for allowing the resulting binaries to
> contain Altivec
On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 10:24 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 05:32:26PM +0200, Michel Dänzer a écrit :
> > On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 11:53 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > >
> > > The result is that on some particular types of computations, the G5
> > > performs extremely bad: so
Le Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 05:32:26PM +0200, Michel Dänzer a écrit :
> On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 11:53 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> > The result is that on some particular types of computations, the G5
> > performs extremely bad: something like twice slower as an old 1.5 Ghz
> > Celeron machine. Fo
On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 17:56 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 05:32:26PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 11:53 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > >
> > > The result is that on some particular types of computations, the G5
> > > performs extremely bad: someth
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 05:32:26PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 11:53 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> > The result is that on some particular types of computations, the G5
> > performs extremely bad: something like twice slower as an old 1.5 Ghz
> > Celeron machine. For s
On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 11:53 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> The result is that on some particular types of computations, the G5
> performs extremely bad: something like twice slower as an old 1.5 Ghz
> Celeron machine. For some other tests, the performances of the
> processors scale with the freq
Hello everybody,
I have to admit that I have always been disappointed to the performance
of my iMac running Debian, and have a gut feeling that it is faster
under OS X. Yesterday, I found by chance a "System Profiler and
Benchmarks" facility in the GNOME Sytem menu, and ran it on my iMac and
a int
12 matches
Mail list logo
