home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!crdgw1!rdsunx.crd.ge.com!ariel!davidsen
- From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
- Subject: Re: Jumptable Performance (Was: Re: shared libs - can everyone be happy with this?)
- Message-ID: <1992Aug19.125541.865@crd.ge.com>
- Date: 19 Aug 92 12:55:41 GMT
- References: <1992Aug17.144719.1961@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug17.151311.29507@ods.com> <NOP.92Aug17135014@theory.Mankato.MSUS.EDU> <1992Aug18.080437.3944@fys.ruu.nl> <1992Aug18.140858.3484@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug18.154149.26416@fys.ruu.nl>
- Sender: usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP)
- Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
- Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY
- Lines: 19
- Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com
-
- In article <1992Aug18.154149.26416@fys.ruu.nl>, hooft@fys.ruu.nl (Rob Hooft) writes:
-
- | Yes, that is what I expect too, but I didn't expect the usertime to go
- | down at all, certainly not by over 0.5 seconds. We're talking a
- | program here that runs for 25 hard CPU-seconds! I'll be timing again
- | this evening, and might even retry the BYTE-bench this time. Twice,
- | that is. I guess I'll be using jump-libs for the rest of my linux-life....
-
- Like most things which seem too good to be true, I'm suspicious. Does
- anyone have an explanation why adding size and instructions to every
- library call would make the program use less user CPU (or appear to)?
- Having used jump tables before I have to be suspicious.
-
- If more instructions and bigger size really improved performance we'd
- all leave -O off our compiles, right. Therefore it's an interesting
- little puzzle.
- --
- bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
- I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.
-