Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:24:49 -0400
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
To: Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>
Cc: GCC Mailing List <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: LMbench as gcc performance regression test?
Message-ID: <20030831152449.GA6893@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>,
	GCC Mailing List <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <3F51A201.8090108@kegel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3F51A201.8090108@kegel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1110
Lines: 26

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:21:37AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> 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.

It's been a while since I looked at lmbench but: why do you think this
would be useful?  It's a system and kernel benchmark; I doubt
optimization makes much difference at all.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
-
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/