Re: [BENCHMARK] gcc3.2 v 2.95.3 (contest and linux-2.5.38)

[Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net>]

Quoting Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>:

> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > 
> > Quoting Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>:
> > 
> > > Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Correct. contest was run with gcc2.95.3 only. The kernels were
> compiled
> > > with
> > > > 2.95.3 and 3.2 respectively.
> > >
> > > I think you made a mistake.  Please rerun. Just one data point will do.
> > >
> > 
> > Ok here are two points to confirm the results and their reproducibility:
> > 
> > No Load:
> > 2.5.38                  68.25           99%
> > 2.5.38-gcc32            103.03          99%
> > 2.5.38-gcc32a           103.47          99%
> > 
> > Process Load:
> > 2.5.38                  71.60           95%
> > 2.5.38-gcc32            112.98          91%
> > 2.5.38-gcc32a           113.60          91%
> > 
> 
> beats the hell out of me.  Frankly, I *still* think
> you made a mistake (at least on the io load thing)
> because the CPU time went down by a mile - it was
> waiting on disk all the time.

If you think I've made a mistake then you're probably correct. I'm investigating
this further. Please do NOT pass judgement on these benchmarks until I
completely retest everything, ensuring gcc is fixed for everything except the
kernel being tested. Disregard until I have a fresh set of confirmed results.

Con.