Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:1155 comp.os.linux:55828 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!bf703 From: bf703@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux Subject: Re: FYI.. benchmarks on linux and 386bsd Date: 6 Oct 1993 06:05:38 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 23 Message-ID: <28tn7i$fl8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> References: <2CB12A8D.17397@news.service.uci.edu> <CGD.93Oct5174650@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: bf703@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding) NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu In a previous article, cgd@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou) says: >In article <MARK_WEAVER.93Oct5175919@excelsior.cis.brown.edu> Mark_Weaver@brown.edu writes: >>You you were running gcc version 1 (the default that comes with >>386bsd 0.1) then that explains it. gcc2 has a significantly better >>optimizer that could easily explain this kind of speed difference. > >geez, considering that 386bsd beat linux by a large percentage >with a *poorer* optimizer, i'm not sure i want to think about >with an equivalent optimizer... *chuckle* > > 386bsd doesn't have shared libraries, does it? If it does, I don't think they're in common use. It might be more fair to make sure the Linux binary is statically linked as well. -- Patrick Volkerding volkerdi@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu bf703@cleveland.freenet.edu