Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 08:39:37 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se
Message-Id: <7458-Tue26Sep2000083937+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5h
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200009251929.VAA06410@father.ludd.luth.se> (message from Martin
	Str|mberg on Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:29:40 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: bnu2951b.zip's ar is slow
References:  <200009251929 DOT VAA06410 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:29:40 +0200 (MET DST)
> > 
> > How much memory does that 386 screamer have?  Is it possible that the
> > large performance hit is due to paging because of the larger memory
> > required by bnu2951b, rather than to actually slower code?
> 
> 4 MiB.
> 
> I know that paging can make performance go out the window, but this is
> a little extreme; if it only was three or four times as slow or even
> ten, but ~65 times?!

Paging can cause even 100-fold slow-down.

However, since you say that it didn't page too much, I guess this
possibility is out.

Does someone still have ld 2.8.1 installed to run a comparison?