[MAL] > Since it is possible that these figures result from my specific > machine setup, I'd like to know what other people see on their > machines. Is this the same machine where you were able to get 15% difference a few years ago by adding or removing an unreachable printf in ceval.c (or was that Vladimir)? If so, I bet it's degenerated to random 50% difference since then <wink>. My Win98SE box is *astonishingly* useless for timings. Without fail, the first time I run pystone after a reboot yields a result a solid 50% higher than the second or subsequent times I run it (yes, it's major-league *slower* the second time). This is true across dozens of trials over several months, and across all versions of Python. And simple little loops routinely vary in reported runtime by a factor of 3. I may have to dig my old Win95 box out of the packing crate <0.6 wink>. None of that changes, of course, that the numbers you got are scary.
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