Re: LuaJIT benchmark
- From: Fredrik Widlund <fredrik.widlund@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: luajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:13:24 +0100
Thanks for the feedback. It is fair to call this a naive microbenchmark
indeed, but the goal of the posts will be more clear once I write some
more. Actually -O2 or -O3 makes little difference here, but I'll might
spend some time looking at clang and gcc side by side.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Coda Highland <chighland@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
