Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261506AbTHaHCc (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2003 03:02:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261792AbTHaHCc (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2003 03:02:32 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]:3792 "EHLO rwcrmhc11.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261506AbTHaHCb (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2003 03:02:31 -0400 Message-ID: <3F51A201.8090108@kegel.com> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 00:21:37 -0700 From: Dan Kegel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: de-de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: GCC Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: LMbench as gcc performance regression test? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1018 Lines: 30 http://cs.nmu.edu/~benchmark/ has an interesting little graph of LMBench results vs. Linux kernel version, all done with the same compiler. Has anyone seen a similar graph showing LMBench results vs. gcc version, all done with the same Linux kernel? And does everyone agree that's a meaningful way to compare the performance of code generated by different compilers? I happen to have a number of versions of gcc handy, and was considering making such a graph, but was hoping somebody else had already done it. (There seems to be large variations in successive runs of LMBench when I try it, so it may take me a bit of work to get repeatable results.) Thanks, Dan -- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/