[CLN-list] Overriding read_number_bad_syntax on OS X

[Ron Garret]

I ran these benchmarks on a MacBook pro (but compiling in 32-bit mode).

First, I would like to correct an earlier claim: I thought that -fno- 
exceptions was the default configuration, but it's not.  When I  
specify -fno-exceptions and try to use a callback that throws an  
exception I get a bus error.

The benchmark results:

pi 100000 takes 1.23 seconds with or without -fno-exceptions

exam takes 0.337 seconds without -fno-exceptions, 0.331 seconds with.

It appears to me that with gcc4, -fno-exceptions has reached the  
point of diminishing returns.

rg


On May 13, 2007, at 4:32 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:

> Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
>> I am very curious about the overhead incurred by compiling CLN
>> without -fno-exceptions.
>
> Here is some data. Compiled cln-1.1.13 on Linux/i386 once with
> CXX="g++ -fno-exceptions" and once with CXX="g++" (both with GCC  
> 4.1.2),
> and performed two deterministic programs, measuring user time:
>
>                             g++ -fno-exceptions     g++
>
> ./exam                         1.24 sec             1.35 sec
> ./pi 100000 > /dev/null        2.64 sec             2.64 sec
>
> As was to be expected, the program which spends most of its time in  
> large
> bignum multiplications is not slowed down. But the program which  
> constructs
> many numbers and performs many (quick) computations is slowed down.
>
> Is a slowdown of 9% significant?
>
> Bruno
>
> _______________________________________________
> CLN-list mailing list
> CLN-list at ginac.de
> https://www.cebix.net/mailman/listinfo/cln-list