[Bug c++/14563] octave built under Cygwin very slow

["pkienzle at users dot sf dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

------- Additional Comments From pkienzle at users dot sf dot net  2004-03-28 22:28 -------
Subject: Re: [Fwd:  octave built under Cygwin very slow]

I'm putting my executable bundle on:

	http://myfilelocker.comcast.net/pkienzle/new.tar.gz

It is easier to compare times if they are on the same machine.

There are two subdirectories: new 32 and 33, each with their
own cygwin1.dll.

 From msys, so long as cygwin is not running, you should
be able to say:

	time 32/cygwin32
	time 32/Ccygwin32
	time 33/cygwin331
	time 33/Ccygwin331
	time 32/mingw32.exe
	time 32/Cmingw32.exe
	time 33/mingw333.exe
	time 33/Cmingw333.exe
	time 33/mingw323.exe

I tried alloc.c with lcc, and it was slower than mingw32 so
I didn't bother recording the time.

Paul Kienzle
pkienzle@users.sf.net

On Mar 28, 2004, at 4:18 PM, Paul Thomas wrote:

> 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