Sender:	root AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID:	<37679FA2.6F2B3BAD@inti.gov.ar>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:59:14 -0300
From:	salvador <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization:	INTI
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i686)
X-Accept-Language:	es-AR, en, es
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com, allegro AT canvaslink DOT com, balug-lst AT balug DOT org DOT ar
Subject:	Re: Compilers comparisson, some opinions about the generated , assembler
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990616135402 DOT 27724D-100000 AT is>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, salvador wrote:
>
> >   Me again with the gcc/egcs/pgcc/MSVC/Watcom comparisson.
>
> Won't the fact that the benchmarks were all run from Windows 95 affect
> the comparison (due to Windows' overhead which doesn't have to be the
> same for PM DOS program and Win32 program)?

I used DOS + CWSDPMI while comparing the assembler routines.
I fact:
1) I'm re-running the benchmarks in the K6-2 using DOS+CWSDPMI because I used it
in the Pentium MMX.
2) If I run only one task in Win95 (and the scheduler didn't get crazy) I get
the same speed in W95, the difference is too small (under 2%)

SET

P.S. I experimented the W95 scheduler crazy behavior that makes (ramdomly) DOS
tasks slower when analysing the assembler, when I had this problem I just went
to DOS and followed the tests. The problem was after using 2 djgpp tasks.

--
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Visit my home page: http://welcome.to/SetSoft or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Alternative e-mail: set-soft AT usa DOT net set AT computer DOT org
                    set AT ieee DOT org set-soft AT bigfoot DOT com
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA Phone: +(5411) 4759 0013

- Raw text -