|
From: Christian L. <chr...@le...> - 2003-03-17 14:06:53
|
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:37:52PM +0000, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> 1. Can you try it with a few other programs? It would be nice to see if
> the 7% speedup is consistent across programs. Some programs I've used
> for performance timing in the past:
>
> gzip
> bzip2
48.36user 0.05system 0:49.79elapsed 97%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
48.47user 0.07system 0:51.22elapsed 94%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
patched:
47.93user 0.09system 0:49.17elapsed 97%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
47.91user 0.09system 0:49.22elapsed 97%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
> latex
real 0m5.088s
user 0m4.790s
sys 0m0.130s
patched:
real 0m4.741s
user 0m4.490s
sys 0m0.140s
> konqueror (startup then quit immediately)
It eats up all CPU till it -9 kill it when I quit it.
(I still have KDE 2.2)
> 2. The bottom of the webpage you mention says:
>
> "An alternate way to write the above example is
>
> static const int array[] = { &&foo - &&foo, &&bar - &&foo,
> &&hack - &&foo };
> goto *(&&foo + array[i]);
>
> This is more friendly to code living in shared libraries, as it reduces
> the number of dynamic relocations that are needed, and by consequence,
> allows the data to be read-only."
>
> Valgrind is packaged as a shared library. Perhaps this might improve
> things further?
Yes, but initially I did not get it working, was a little stupid error.
I'll try it, but this takes some time.
cachegrind shows me with a little test programm, that it's slower with
the later thing. But it's not a shared library and I don't know how
often it has to be done.
Regards,
Christian Leber
--
"Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur,
nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." (Aurelius Augustinus)
Translation: <http://gnuhh.org/work/fsf-europe/augustinus.html>
|