Re: clang performance bug is worse on openbsd than freebsd

2021-11-08 Thread Raul Miller
Sorting an array of around 300 (or 3) randomly created unsigned characters sounds like a task tailor made for binsort. (Which seems plausibly worth mentioning in this context.) That said, the key openbsd issues might not include performance on this particular benchmark. Thanks, -- Raul On

Re: clang performance bug is worse on openbsd than freebsd

2021-11-08 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2021-11-08, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Stuart Henderson wrote: > >> On 2021-11-08, Otto Moerbeek wrote: >> > On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 08:13:36PM -0600, Luke Small wrote: >> > >> >> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50026 >> >> >> >> I reported it to the llvm people. it is two slightly differe

Re: clang performance bug is worse on openbsd than freebsd

2021-11-08 Thread Theo de Raadt
Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2021-11-08, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 08:13:36PM -0600, Luke Small wrote: > > > >> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50026 > >> > >> I reported it to the llvm people. it is two slightly different quicksort > >> algorithms which perform rad

Re: clang performance bug is worse on openbsd than freebsd

2021-11-08 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2021-11-08, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 08:13:36PM -0600, Luke Small wrote: > >> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50026 >> >> I reported it to the llvm people. it is two slightly different quicksort >> algorithms which perform radically differently. The one which you co

Re: clang performance bug is worse on openbsd than freebsd

2021-11-07 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 08:13:36PM -0600, Luke Small wrote: > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50026 > > I reported it to the llvm people. it is two slightly different quicksort > algorithms which perform radically differently. The one which you could > assume would take more time, performs

clang performance bug is worse on openbsd than freebsd

2021-11-07 Thread Luke Small
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50026 I reported it to the llvm people. it is two slightly different quicksort algorithms which perform radically differently. The one which you could assume would take more time, performs MUCH better. I made a custom quicksort algorithm which outperforms qso