Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Speed Test for Comparison |
| Date | 2011-12-08 21:43 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <jbrb2o$nn$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <9kc99pFurU1@mid.individual.net> |
"Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> wrote in message news:9kc99pFurU1@mid.individual.net... > I have included below 56 speed test results when using the C-based > Harbour language along with the MinGw 4.6.1 C compiler > 12/08/11 09:38:05 Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3 > Harbour 3.1.0dev (Rev. 17129) MinGW GNU C 4.6.1 (32-bit) x86 > THREADS: 0 > N_LOOPS: 1000000 > [ T000: empty loop overhead ]...................................0.08 > ==================================================================== > [ T001: x := L_C ]..............................................0.06 Your tests consist of individual assignment statements? Then they are probably too trivial to be meaningful. The timings are also a little suspect: an empty loop executed a million times would be expected to give a timing of zero, even when the compiler doesn't eliminate the loop completely anyway, as it is likely to do on these simple tests. There are loads of well-known benchmarks around, perhaps you should try testing some of those. Some of the assignments are difficult to reproduce in C anyway, unless you explain exactly what str(i) means for example. -- Bartc
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Speed Test for Comparison "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-12-08 10:09 -0700
Re: Speed Test for Comparison Richard Sanders <lnr729@gmail.com> - 2011-12-08 11:19 -0800
Re: Speed Test for Comparison "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-12-08 13:13 -0700
Re: Speed Test for Comparison "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-12-08 13:18 -0700
Re: Speed Test for Comparison Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-08 20:41 +0000
Re: Speed Test for Comparison Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-12-08 12:49 -0800
Re: Speed Test for Comparison Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-08 21:53 +0000
Re: Speed Test for Comparison Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-08 20:41 +0000
Re: Speed Test for Comparison "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-12-08 21:43 +0000
Re: Speed Test for Comparison ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-12-08 13:58 -0800
Re: Speed Test for Comparison Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-12-08 14:58 -0800
Re: Speed Test for Comparison "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-12-10 11:28 -0700
Re: Speed Test for Comparison "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-12-10 21:40 +0000
Re: Speed Test for Comparison "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2011-12-10 19:26 -0700
Re: Speed Test for Comparison Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-12-10 13:49 -0800
csiph-web