From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ns.zrt.nl (ns.zrt.nl [212.153.94.193]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DFA482C for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 03:39:52 -0700 (MST) Received: (from fwmaster@localhost) by ns.zrt.nl (8.9.1a/8.6.12) id LAA05941 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:39:50 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:28:50 +0100 From: "Jurriaan Kalkman" To: Cc: Subject: Betr.: Re: [parisc-linux] Linux/PA-RISC speed (was Re: C240 Graphics, 64bit kernel and more) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: >> Alpha (gcc-2.95.4) : real 5m45 user 5m13 system 9s >> Alpha (gcc-3.0.2 20010924): real 4m36 user 4m12 system 10s >> C200+ (gcc-3.0.2 20010922): real 8m23 user 7m48 system 33s >> dual P3/700 (gcc-2.95.4) : real 1m20 user 1m17 system 3s > >Be cautious. Unless you built cross compilers and each is building for >the same target you are doing different amounts of work for each target >CPU In what way? It's not like the ./configure script will produce very = different results on alpha vs parisc, it doesn't even check for 64 bits/32 bits differences. All this just demonstrated my gut feeling that compiling ( the kernel, for example) feels slower on parisc than it should be. > >Looking at the high system time I guess there is work to do on the hppa, >but it doesn't suprise me. It takes a lot of time to tune a port after it >actually works reliably > It's exciting to be involved in - I fully agree. Good luck, Jurriaan