[Harbour] 2008-10-03 21:53 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)

[Szakáts Viktor]

Hi Przemek,

MinGW results attached. [ All with -gc3 for Harbour and
default -gc0 for speedtst. ]

Brgds,
Viktor

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mingw-results.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 5832 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.harbour-project.org/pipermail/harbour/attachments/20081004/cdc1270e/mingw-results-0001.zip
-------------- next part --------------


On 2008.10.04., at 1:42, Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008, Szak?ts Viktor wrote:
>
> Hi Viktor,
>
>> All these were MT speedtsts (two executables, one for -gc0,
>> one for -gc3), and 3rd 4th were run with a parameter to
>> enable parallel execution.
>
> Thanks,
>
>> Here are the ST results with new speedtst:
> [...]
>> [ total application time: ]........................43.00 ..37.75
>> [ total real time: ]...............................37.47 ..31.09
>
> I would seriously check how MSVC measure time.
> In ST build "total application time" should be lower then
> "total real time". I do not know why you have such results.
> Maybe MSVC C-RTL executes some internal threads?
>
>
>> And here are the results with "OS/2" spinlocks enabled:
>> Harbour 1.1.0dev (Rev. 9542) (MT) Microsoft Visual C 15.0.26569 (32  
>> bit)
>
> Thank you very much but they will not be enabled for MSVC builds.
> I created ASM inline functions only for GCC so in Windows you can
> compare MinGW builds now. If it will give some noticeable speed
> improvement then I can implement them also for other compilers.
>
> Anyhow if possible I would like to ask also you about comparison
> of MT+ mode with DL-MALLOC and standard MSVC malloc. I made some
> test in Linux and DL-MALLOC results are not good :-(
>
> best regards,
> Przemek
> _______________________________________________
> Harbour mailing list
> Harbour at harbour-project.org
> http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour