Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:54:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> To: Harlan.Stenn@pfcs.com Cc: Harlan.Stenn@pfcs.com, garbanzo@hooked.net, mike@smith.net.au, entropy@compufit.at, wwoods@cybcon.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc 2.8 Message-ID: <199808252254.RAA01679@detlev.UUCP> In-Reply-To: <870.904074782@brown.pfcs.com> (message from Harlan Stenn on Tue, 25 Aug 1998 15:53:02 -0400) References: <870.904074782@brown.pfcs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I tested two packages. > One compares a number (6-8) byte move subroutines (memcpy, bcopy, a variety > of Duff's devices (using char, short, and int), and some other "fast" byte > copies I've snarfed over the years). Just to be sure: these are using their own recompiled bcopy etc, and not running the ones out of libc? > I run a reasonable quantity of different size/alignments against each of > these, and report the CPU time of each one. Could you please post this data? > If I could get TenDRA to produce an executable that can be run under > gprof, I'd do that instead. Has anybody investigated why -pg doesn't work for TenDRA? -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org - http://www.wp.com/piquan Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808252254.RAA01679>