Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4

Subject: Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4
From: Shmuel Zeigerman &lt;shmuz@ ... &gt;
Date: 2010年10月14日 21:25:05 +0200

Javier Guerra Giraldez wrote:

time luajit-2.0.0-beta4 -e "for i=1,1e9 do end"
real 0m0.864s
user 0m0.840s
sys 0m0.010s
still not as good as mike's, but well into 21st century!

I'm getting 0.359s with luajit-2.0.0-beta5 (built with MinGW), on a verycheap PC.

--
Shmuel

Follow-Ups:
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, Mike Pall

References:
- bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, David Manura
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, KHMan
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, Mike Pall
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, KHMan
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, Miles Bader
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, KHMan
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, David Kastrup
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, KHMan
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, Mike Pall
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, Martin
- Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4, Javier Guerra Giraldez