Re: FreeBSD Compiler Benchmark: gcc-base vs. gcc-ports vs. clang

From: Vinícius Zavam <egypcio_at_googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:43:54 -0300
2011/3/12 Poul-Henning Kamp <phk_at_phk.freebsd.dk>:
> In message <4D7B44AF.7040406_at_FreeBSD.org>, Martin Matuska writes:
>
>
> Thanks a lot for doing this properly.
>
>>What significance level should I take?
>
> I think I set ministat(1) to use 95 % confidence level by default
> and that is in general a pretty safe bet (1 in 20 chance)
>
>>I hope this approach is better :)
>
> Much, much better.
>
> As I said, this was not to go after you personally, but to point
> out that we need to be more rigorous with benchmarks in general.
>
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

i'm still curious about things like CPUTYPE= and -march= configured as
native, gentlemen.
is it the "golden egg" to use with our system or not? why "natives"
aren't in the benchs?

/me feels confused.


-- 
Vinícius Zavam
profiles.google.com/egypcio
Received on Sat Mar 12 2011 - 22:43:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:12 UTC