Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 15:43:51 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: 1.3.1 *is* slower Message-ID: <20010507154351.D29090@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <20010427160641 DOT A11039 AT redhat DOT com> <3AF6E177 DOT 42A39A64 AT yahoo DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <3AF6E177.42A39A64@yahoo.com>; from earnie_boyd@yahoo.com on Mon, May 07, 2001 at 01:55:03PM -0400 On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 01:55:03PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >> It is true that 1.3.1 is slower than 1.1.8. I benchmarked it on my NT 2K >> dual processor 300MHZ system. >> >> A config.status --recheck in my gdb build directory takes a minute 1 second >> with 1.3.1, 52 seconds with 1.1.8, and 48 seconds with 1.1.5. >> >> Not a very encouraging trend. >> >> Anybody have any ideas? This is usually a sign of an extra disk open somewhere >> but I don't see anything obvious. >> > >Hey Chris, what do your timings give you now? Just curious if my >strrchr patch improved it. As I mentioned, I'm working on an asm version of strrchr to complement the asm version of strchr. The timings show something like a 5 - 6% improvement with the asm version. I haven't tried with the newlib version. I'm very glad that you found this bottleneck. cgf