Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2001
Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@iki.fi> writes:
>On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 01:02:42PM +0000, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>> Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> writes:
>> >If one uses Duff's device in PERL_HASH, the regression tests go about 2%
>> >faster.
>>
>> Note - that may be literally true, but is not the speed difference in perl.
>> The tests are riddled with sleep()s and other system timing overhead.
>
>That is true, the timing of the whole suite is to be taken with a
>biiig grain of salt -- but a test of consisting of, say, 1 second of
>actual test (CPU time being burned) and 1 second of sleep gets sped up
>by, say, 10%, it means that the CPU time really got slashed by 20%,
>which is actually *more* significant than without the sleep.
Agreed, which is what I meant. The big problem I find though is
that you cannot measure small differences - the uncertainty of the
test suite as a whole swamps (say) the cost of the
if (PL_sig_pending)
{
}
>
>I think the most dubious element of the test suite as a whole is the
>large number of separate and relatively small scripts, the operating
>system (and filesystem, and networking, and ...) dependent startup
>time may taint the results quite a lot.
--
Nick Ing-Simmons <nik@tiuk.ti.com>
Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next