Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster

>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:26:39 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <lt@toetsch.at> said:

  > Nicholas Clark wrote:
 >> So I'm confused. It looks like some bits of perl are incredibly sensitive to
 >> cache alignment, or something similar.

  > This reminds me on my remarks on JITed mops.pasm which variied ~50%

And it reminds me on my postings to p5p about glibc being very buggy
up to 2.3 (posted during last October). I came to the conclusion that
perl cannot be benchmarked at all with glibc before v2.3.

-- 
andreas

• benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by Nicholas Clark
• Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by Michael G Schwern
• Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by hv
• Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by Peter Nimmervoll
• Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by Leopold Toetsch
• Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by Leopold Toetsch
• Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by Unknown Sender
• Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by A . Bergman
• Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by Nicholas Clark
• Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by hv
• Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by andreas.koenig
• Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by Nicholas Clark
• Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by andreas.koenig
• Re: benchmarking - it's now all(-1,0,1,5,6)% faster by Leopold Toetsch