Re: LuaJIT benchmark
- From: Coda Highland <chighland@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: luajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:06:51 -0700
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 2:56 PM, ivan starkov <istarkov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> And add c++ compiler flags
I think that compiling with defaults at -O2 is the best representation
of performance for a naive microbenchmark like this. Otherwise you
could get into an argument about why one language gets permission to
do more fine-tuning than another, or how relevant such a benchmark is
to real-world workloads, or whether or not you should tune the
environment to be optimized for the specific input you're providing.
Meanwhile, clang and gcc (more specifically, libc++ and libstdc++)
could potentially provide noticeably different implementations of a
hash table. (I don't know if they actually DO or not, I haven't
looked.) The compilers could also choose different assembly-level
techniques for translating the algorithm into machine code. That, I
think, is a substantial enough potential difference for research.
/s/ Adam
Other related posts:
