Re: Timer updates revision 7 (asm sets predicates/various fixes)

From: Christoph Lameter <christoph_at_lameter.com>
Date: 2004-08-04 07:06:26
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, David Mosberger wrote:

> >>>>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:33:56 -0700 (PDT), christoph@lameter.com said:
>
>   Christoph> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, David Mosberger wrote:
>   >> >>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 08:30:19 -0700 (PDT), Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> said:
>   >>
>   Christoph> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, David Mosberger wrote:
>   >> >> It occurred to me now why your numbers are higher: I linked my
>   >> >> program statically, whereas yours is probably linked dynamically?
>   >>
>   Christoph> Correct. But why would this have an influence?
>   >>
>   >> I'm just trying to determine why our numbers were different.  I dont like
>   >> unexplained differences.
>
>   Christoph> The different numbers may be due to the different kinds of scaling
>   Christoph> applied to the clock frequency to produce the ITC frequency.
>
> No, I think they're precisely because you linked the program dynamically.
> Try linking it statically.  I'm fairly confident you'll get the
> same/very similar numbers as I did.

When I link it statically the fastcall handler is not used and the numbers
are much higher. Maybe we are using different glibcs? This is with SUSE
SLES9.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Tue Aug 3 17:06:54 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:29 EST