Jeremy Hylton wrote:
>
> The performance difference I see on my Sparc is smaller. The machine
> is a 200MHz Ultra Sparc 2 with 256MB of RAM, built both versions with
> GCC 2.8.1. It appears that 1.6a2 is about 3.3% slower.
>
> The median pystone time taken from 10 measurements are:
> 1.5.2 4.87
> 1.6a2 5.035
>
> For comparison, the numbers I see on my Linux box (dual PII 266) are:
>
> 1.5.2 3.18
> 1.6a2 3.53
>
> That's about 10% faster under 1.5.2.
Which GCC was it on the Linux box,
and how much RAM does it have?
> I'm not sure how important this change is. Three percent isn't enough
> for me to worry about, but it's a minority platform. I suppose 10
> percent is right on the cusp. If the performance difference is the
> cost of the many improvements of 1.6, I think it's worth the price.
Yes, and I'm happy to pay the price if I can see where I pay.
That's the problem, the changes between the pre-unicode tag
and the current CVS are not enough to justify that speed loss.
There must be something substantial.
I also don't grasp why my optimizations are so much more
powerful on 1.5.2+ as on 1.6 .
Mark Hammond pointed me to the int/long unification.
Was this done *after* the unicode patches?
ciao - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@appliedbiometrics.com>
Applied Biometrics GmbH : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Kaunstr. 26 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net
14163 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net
PGP Fingerprint E182 71C7 1A9D 66E9 9D15 D3CC D4D7 93E2 1FAE F6DF
where do you want to jump today? http://www.stackless.com
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4