Re: [Harbour] 2008-09-24 20:30 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-09-26 Thread Maurilio Longo
Przemyslaw, I've used your inlined asm inc/dec routines and now xHarbour MT is a little bit faster, but not so much. xHarbour MT total application time: 203.21 total real time:203.22 Best regards. Maurilio. Maurilio Longo wrote:

Re: [Harbour] 2008-09-24 20:30 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-09-26 Thread Maurilio Longo
Przemyslaw, Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote: > I expected worse results then Harbour ones but I didn't expect such > big difference and such big MT overhead. xHarbour does not even use > protection for complex variable reference counters in OS2 builds - > Walter implemented them only for MS-Windows. Now

Re: [Harbour] 2008-09-24 20:30 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-09-25 Thread Przemyslaw Czerpak
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Maurilio Longo wrote: Hi Maurilio, > Ok, here they are, > same hardware, xharbour at $Id: ChangeLog,v 1.6182 2008/08/01 09:41:14 > marchuet Exp $ > MT > total application time: 214.79 > ST > total application time: 95.1

Re: [Harbour] 2008-09-24 20:30 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-09-25 Thread Maurilio Longo
Ok, here they are, same hardware, xharbour at $Id: ChangeLog,v 1.6182 2008/08/01 09:41:14 marchuet Exp $ MT total application time: 214.79 total real time:214.79 ST total application time: 95.18 total

Re: [Harbour] 2008-09-24 20:30 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-09-25 Thread Przemyslaw Czerpak
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Maurilio Longo wrote: Hi Maurilio, > Yes, probably differences between SMP and UNI kernels, or size of on chip > cache. > Anyway, I think that in real code you don't notice such a difference. Yes of course. This test measures only HVM performance on pure PCODE evaluation. I

Re: [Harbour] 2008-09-24 20:30 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-09-25 Thread Maurilio Longo
Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote: > > Thank you for the tests. You have a little bit bigger difference then > David. It's ~34%. But I cannot say exactly why. It's possible that > some memory operation have different cost in MT and ST code due to > different startup memory consumption by MT and ST HVMs. An

Re: [Harbour] 2008-09-24 20:30 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-09-25 Thread Przemyslaw Czerpak
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Maurilio Longo wrote: Hi Maurilio, > latest code, OS/2 GCC, HB_FM_STATISTICS_OFF, PIV HT 3.6GHz, SMP Kernel. > ST > > total application time: 52.85 > total real time:

Re: [Harbour] 2008-09-24 20:30 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-09-25 Thread Maurilio Longo
Przemyslaw, latest code, OS/2 GCC, HB_FM_STATISTICS_OFF, PIV HT 3.6GHz, SMP Kernel. ST total application time: 52.85 total real time: 52.85 MT

[Harbour] 2008-09-24 20:30 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

2008-09-24 Thread Przemyslaw Czerpak
2008-09-24 20:30 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl) * harbour/source/vm/estack.c ! fixed stack preloading - it should be after checking if stack exist :) best regards Przemek ___ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.