Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/03/23/22:23:40
At 10:09 PM 3/23/2004, you wrote:
>I am writing a document on the performance of gnu make and various
>makefiles and came across something I can't explain.
>
>To measure the speed of gnu make $(subst...) versus sed I wrote this
>simple makefile:
>
> p1000 := ...<1000 character string with periodic semicolons>...
> # This simple assignment 10000 times.
> x := $(subst ;, ,$(p1000))
> ...
>
>I then run this makefile 10 times and average the times. I ran the
>makefile on Windows XP with Cygwin and a Linux system with RedHat 9:
>
> Windows XP 1.8 GHz/P4/512MB 82644 assignments / second
> Linux 450 MHz/P2/256MB 111111 assignments / second
>
>As you can see the puny 450 MHz P2 managed to kick Windows ass. I'm
>at a total loss to explain why, though. For instance,
>
>* Both systems were idle, with no memory hogging apps running (the
> Windows machine was freshly booted)
>
>* The test runs the makefile only 10 times, for only 10 process
> create/loads and 100000 assignments
>
>* The test seems to be entirely cpu bound, with both executables
> compiled by gcc (albeit different versions)
>
>Could this be entirely explained by the difference in process creation
>times? I would have thought that the 4 times clock rate and beefier
>ram would have adequately compensated.
>
>Note, this is not - in any way - a complaint about performance. I'd
>just like to understand the reasons.
Some of it, at least, is likely the overhead of Cygwin. You might want to
try a completely native version for Windows if you're looking for a more
direct comparison.
--
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -