Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #140597

Re: Compiler stress test

Show all headers | View raw

Ian Collins wrote:
> On 06/02/2019 14:16, Bart wrote:
>> On 06/02/2019 01:10, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2019 12:58, Bart wrote:
>>
>>>> Now gcc takes 5 times as long as clang.
>>>
>>> So there is a problem with gcc builds for Windows.
>>
>> Maybe they forgot to use -O3.
>>
>> Or maybe there is a problem with clang builds for Linux (plus your
>> machines are much faster than mine).
> 
> 10x faster?  I doubt it.  Even twice (at the hardware level) would be 
> unlikely unless you are using something very old.
> 

I hope you guys turned off the AV.

If benching in Windows 10, you have to think carefully
about how many ways Microsoft can ruin a benchmark.

Windows Defender is one way. Search Indexer is the other.
Search Indexer hooks the USN journal, and every time the
journal logs a file system change, Search Indexer "looks
for work to do". Disabling Search Indexer is only temporary,
meaning after you tell the service to stop, it starts itself
again. Rather than being told to stop 3 times and just stopping
as is design intent, I've stopped it 17 times and it always
starts processing again. You have to keep the panel open,
and pound on the stop button when it starts in again.

I think my record so far, was a bench that ran 7X faster
once Windows Defender was turned off its real-time scanning.

You can disable Windows Defender using a GUI, but I
like to use a command line with the pest.

    Powershell, as administrator. Disable Windows Defender:

    Set-MpPreference -DisableRealtimeMonitoring 1

Another pest is the SuperFetch service, which might
tie up a core. Not a problem if you have cores to waste.
My recollection is, that one is well behaved. You stop
it, and a reboot will start it running again.

I've even had Windows 10 affect the accuracy of a
hard disk transfer benchmark. Your bench will be 5% to
10% lower than it should have been. It didn't always do
that, and that behavior started within the last
year to year and a half.

The people who work on Chromium, have seen a bug in
Windows where the build process gets slower with time.
And the last I'd heard, that wasn't really fixed as such.
You'll notice your mouse "stutter" a bit, after the
build has been running for ten minutes and forked
many compiles and links. That won't be an issue for
this straight-line bench though. That behavior only
slows the preparation of large projects.

HTH,
    Paul

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Compiler stress test jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-05 10:30 +0100
  Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-05 22:50 +1300
    Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-05 22:56 +1300
      strict aliasing rule on buffers slacked.misha@gmail.com - 2019-02-05 13:33 +0100
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-02-05 08:13 -0500
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2019-02-05 06:00 -0800
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-05 15:33 +0100
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-05 14:36 +0000
        Re: strict aliasing rule on buffers James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-02-05 07:27 -0800
    Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-07 08:28 +1300
      Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-06 19:48 +0000
      Re: Compiler stress test jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-06 22:11 +0100
        Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 00:34 +0100
          Re: Compiler stress test jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-07 07:13 +0100
            Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 08:32 +0100
              Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-07 12:06 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 14:08 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-07 13:49 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 17:01 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2019-02-07 22:26 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-07 23:24 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-07 23:20 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-08 10:42 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-08 16:37 +1300
                Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-08 12:30 +0100
                Re: Compiler stress test Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 08:18 -0800
                Re: Compiler stress test scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-08 16:04 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-02-11 20:34 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-08 16:30 +1300
  Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 12:20 +0000
    Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 09:59 +1300
      Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 21:57 +0000
        Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 00:29 +0100
          Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 23:58 +0000
            Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 14:10 +1300
              Re: Compiler stress test Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-06 01:16 +0000
                Re: Compiler stress test Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 14:21 +1300
                Re: Compiler stress test Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2019-02-06 01:28 -0500
                Re: Compiler stress test Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2019-02-08 03:51 -0500
            Re: Compiler stress test David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-06 08:13 +0100
      Re: Compiler stress test BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 13:13 -0600

csiph-web