my crude benchmark results

Thu Jul 15 12:29:00 GMT 2004

Following the advice of the list, I've got new test results (with 263
iterations instead of 100 iterations, so all result times can be
compared to those of Mr. Gabriele (err, John:). The difference in the C
code execution time I chalk up to noise. The Java code execution is
about 5% faster.
I *also* happen to have a copy of the java-gui-branch of GCJ v3.5 from
CVS. In the last set of runs, it didn't do so hot so I dropped it, but
look at it with the --fast-math flas! I'm thinking that the bounds
check isn't as important an optimization as the fast math functions.
GCJ v3.5 CVS (java-gui-branch) (gcj Main.java --main=Main -O3
-save-temps --fast-math -fno-bounds-check -o java3.5.cvs-fast.exe; time
./java3.5.cvs-fast.exe)
real 0m4.298s
user 0m4.126s
sys 0m0.016s
GCJ v3.5 CVS (java-gui-branch) (gcj Main.java --main=Main -O3
--fast-math -o java3.5.cvs-fast-wb.exe; time ./java3.5.cvs-fast-wb.exe)
real 0m4.323s
user 0m4.246s
sys 0m0.009s
GCC v3.3.4 (gcc -o c-fast.exe -lm -ffast-math benchmark.c; time
./c-fast.exe)
real 0m8.549s
user 0m8.477s
sys 0m0.003s
GCJ v3.3.4 (gcj Main.java --main=Main -O3 -save-temps --fast-math
-fno-bounds-check -o java3.3.4-fast.exe; time ./java3.3.4-fast.exe)
real 0m15.811s
user 0m15.466s
sys 0m0.021s
GCJ v3.5 CVS (java-gui-branch) (gcj Main.java --main=Main -O3 -o
java3.5.cvs-slow.exe; time ./java3.5.cvs-slow.exe)
real 0m35.503s
user 0m35.135s
sys 0m0.015s
-- 
James Damour (Suvarov454) <suvarov454@users.sourceforge.net>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/java/attachments/20040715/e17375b4/attachment.sig>