Re: [ANN] Lua BitOp 1.0.0 released

[Ignacio Burgueño <ignaciob@...>]

Mike Pall wrote:
> I don't believe that GCC is that much better than either Watcom C
> or whatever Ignacio used to compile Lua. Have both of you compiled
> with full optimization and in release mode? And without Lua API
> assertions? IMHO there should be a maximum factor of 2x-3x between
> our timings.

Nope, I compiled with MSVC 6 and /MD /O2 flags. But I do have API 
assertions enabled.

The previous benchmark I sent I was mistakingly running on power saving 
mode on my laptop.

Now it is on max. performance mode and the benchmark gives:
lua5.1 -lluarocks.require d:\Lua\LuaBitOp-1.0.0\bitbench.lua

loop baseline     41.5 ns
tobit            128.5 ns
bnot             149.9 ns
bor/band/bxor    185.0 ns
shifts           183.1 ns
rotates          177.3 ns
bswap            140.1 ns

Still not as quick as yours, but remember that I have API assertions so 
I'm not a good reference.


> Ignacio Burgueño wrote:
> > However, the following does not act as expected:

> > Surely it's because nsievebits.lua uses 'arg' and my build of Lua has
> > LUA_COMPAT_VARARG disabled.
>
> Nope, that's the expected output. The argument is exponential, see
> the description in doc/install.html. And 'arg' is used to get the
> Lua command line arguments, not a vararg function argument.

Oh... My mistake. Sorry for the noise.

Regards,
Ignacio