Message-ID: <010501be5064$215c4780$1e2d87ca@default>
From: "Maki Yoshimura" <maki DOT mail AT ibm DOT net>
To: <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: Question about long long math on intel archs
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 02:28:03 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by out5.ibm.net id RAA46146
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id MAA08851
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Somthing is wrong with your mailing list.
I have never registered to your list.
So please do not send these kinds of mails , again
because I do not understand English language.
Regards,

-----Original Message-----
差出人 : Daniel <entropic AT mpx DOT com DOT au>
ニュースグループ : comp.os.msdos.djgpp
宛先 : djgpp AT delorie DOT com <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
日時 : 1999年2月5日 2:18
件名 : Re: Question about long long math on intel archs


>Hello,
>
>  Here's what my decaying 486DX2/66 running the program in a win95 dos
>box had to say....
>
>Did 1000000 long long multiplies in 2.03297 seconds.
>Did 5000000 long long multiplies in 9.61538 seconds.
>Did 10000000 long long multiplies in 17.9121 seconds.
>Did 50000000 long long multiplies in 98.341 seconds.
>
>but perhaps a comparison of long-operations and long-long-'s would be
>more interesting?  after all we already know that different CPU's will
>perform differently.. what is really interesting is how the performance
>on the same CPU declines if long's are replaced by long-long's.  i might
>do that tomorrow.
>
>g'bye.
>