public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/14563] octave built under Cygwin very slow Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:19:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20040328211906.32727.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20040312233606.14563.paulthomas2@wanadoo.fr> ------- Additional Comments From paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-03-28 21:18 ------- Subject: Re: [Fwd: octave built under Cygwin very slow] Well, we seem to have got rid of the smoked fish (sorry, red herring) and now have a smoking howitzer...... Paul, It strikes me that not only is new/delete slow for cygwin331 but that malloc/delete must also take most of the execution time for the octave tests. These seem to be totally excluded from the profiling. I have added the Intel, Visual C and gcc331 times for Windows XP on an Athlon 1700 Paul T PS I would have added the exit but I was going to bash ctrl-c is anything went wrong with the allocation. Paul Kienzle wrote: > Tests of malloc and new [] for cygwin and mingw 3.2 and 3.3 and linux > gcc 3.3. > Someone please fill in numbers for 'native' windows compilers, such as > visual C and Intel. > > === Times, running under msys on a Windows 2000 PII-300 system > > System real user sys > mingw333 17.936 0.030 0.040 > cygwin331 72.394 0.020 0.060 > Cmingw333 12.277 0.010 0.060 > Ccygwin331 24.355 0.030 0.050 > > System real user sys > mingw323 18.837 0.020 0.040 > mingw32 14.160 0.010 0.060 > cygwin32 15.933 0.020 0.050 > Cmingw32 12.668 0.030 0.040 > Ccygwin32 14.410 0.010 0.080 Paul Thomas adds... === Elapsed times running under Windows XP on an Athlon 1700 System execution time (octave> tic;system('./malloctest.exe');toc intel 2.19 VC 2.17 cygwin331 19.86 Cintel 2.58 CVC 2.37 Ccygwin331 4.34 > > === Times, running under bash on a Debian PII-400 system > > System real user sys > linux332 4.808 4.800 0.010 > Clinux332 3.162 3.160 0.000 > > === Versions > > mingw32 3.2 (mingw special 20020817-1) > mingw323 3.2.3 (mingw special 20030504-1) > mingw333 3.3.3 (mingw special) > cygwin32 3.2 (20020927 prerelease), linked against stdc++.dll > cygwin331 3.3.1-3 (cygming special) > linux332 3.3.2 20030908 (Debian prerelease) > > === C++ Compiled with g++ -O2. Run under msys. > // Author Paul Thomas > #include <iostream> > using namespace std; > > int main() > { > for (int iloop = 0; iloop < 10000000; iloop++) > { > double *myarray; > if ((myarray = new double [1]) == NULL) > cout << "unable to allocate my array at iloop=" << iloop << endl; > delete [] myarray; > } > cout << "done looping" << endl; > return 0; > } > > === C Compiled with gcc -O2. Run under msys. > /* modified from C++ by Paul Kienzle */ > #include <stdio.h> > int main() > { > int iloop; > for (iloop = 0; iloop < 10000000; iloop++) > { > double *myarray = (double *)malloc(sizeof(double)); > if (myarray== NULL) { printf("alloc failed\n"); exit(1); } > else free (myarray); > } > return 0; > } > > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-28 21:19 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2004-03-12 23:36 [Bug c++/14563] New: " paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-03-13 7:24 ` [Bug c++/14563] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-13 8:06 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-03-14 20:33 ` bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-24 9:52 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-03-24 15:57 ` bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-24 16:38 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-03-24 17:03 ` bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-24 21:07 ` Ben dot Diedrich at noaa dot gov 2004-03-24 22:58 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2004-03-25 6:40 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-03-25 13:43 ` bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-25 14:16 ` Ben dot Diedrich at noaa dot gov 2004-03-25 14:17 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-03-25 14:26 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-03-25 14:37 ` bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-03-25 15:37 ` Ben dot Diedrich at noaa dot gov 2004-03-25 16:41 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-03-28 21:19 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr [this message] 2004-03-28 22:28 ` pkienzle at users dot sf dot net 2004-03-31 0:21 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-04-02 17:43 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-04-02 19:55 ` bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-04-02 20:35 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2004-04-02 20:41 ` pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-04-02 20:44 ` bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-04-03 9:10 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-04-03 17:19 ` epanelelytha at kellertimo dot de 2004-04-03 17:54 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-04-03 18:00 ` epanelelytha at kellertimo dot de 2004-04-03 18:24 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-07-12 14:50 ` [Bug libstdc++/14563] new/delete much slower than malloc/free pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-12 19:21 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-07-12 20:55 ` bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-07-13 4:17 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-07-28 2:50 ` ron_hylton at hotmail dot com 2004-07-28 3:57 ` ron_hylton at hotmail dot com 2004-07-28 6:03 ` [Bug target/14563] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-29 4:23 ` ron_hylton at hotmail dot com 2004-08-08 9:24 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-11-10 8:21 ` [Bug target/14563] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] new/delete much slower than malloc/free because of sjlj exceptions giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-10 8:21 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-10 9:10 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2004-11-10 12:46 ` [Bug target/14563] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-10 16:20 ` ron_hylton at hotmail dot com 2004-11-10 17:05 ` kjd at duda dot org 2004-11-13 11:03 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-11-14 17:03 ` ken dot duda at gmail dot com 2004-11-14 18:04 ` paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2004-11-14 22:40 ` ken dot duda at gmail dot com 2005-05-12 14:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-12 14:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20040328211906.32727.qmail@sources.redhat.com \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).