Why so many segfaults?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Mike Pall <mikelu-0803@mike.de>
wrote:
Miles Bader wrote:
> Asko Kauppi <askok@dnainternet.net> writes:
> > The easiest way to achieve this is to only use the int32 mode.
It would
> > boost performance on non-FPU platforms, and cause absolutely no
> > behaviour or accuracy changes on double+int32 configured desktop
> > machines.
>
> Is there any real _advantage_ on typical desktop machines (there's
an
> obvious disadvange, which is code bloat)?
Well ... draw your own conclusions:
Here are some benchmarks for Lua 5.1.3 vs. Lua patched with LNUM
260308 (double/int32) on an Intel Core 2 @ 2.13 GHz. Both are
compiled with GCC 4.1.2 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer.
Benchmark | LNUM better (+) or worse (-) than Lua
-------------+--------------------------------------
binarytrees | -2%
chameneos | -3%
cheapconcr | LNUM: Lua error
cheapconcw | LNUM: Lua stack overflow
fannkuch | -4%
fasta | LNUM: Segmentation fault
knucleotide | -4%
mandelbrot | -20%
nbody | LNUM: Segmentation fault
nsieve | -3%
nsievebits | -9%
partialsums | -12%
pidigits | LNUM: Segmentation fault
recursive | -3%
regexdna | +-0%
revcomp | -8%
spectralnorm | +1%
sumfile | +14% (this mainly measures strtol vs. strtod)
SciMark | LNUM: Segmentation fault
--Mike
