Re: Running Lua on Windows

["steve donovan" <steve.j.donovan@...>]

Some unscientific experiments, using some of the scripts used in the
shootout: generally, not as much difference as I expected, pretty
much-of-a-muchness. Except the binarytrees script took 38 sec for
mingw (-02), 35 sec for Lua5.1.exe, and 22.5 sec for VC6 (-O2) !

steve d.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Dirk Feytons <dirk.feytons@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:24 AM, steve donovan
>
> <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've been looking for a good Lua benchmark suite, but my friend Google
>  >  isn't being forthcoming. Then I'll do the VC6 vs mingw comparison;
>  >  particularly curious about the -mtune options.
>
>  How about http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ ?
>  After all, it is the primary source of evidence for the "Lua is fast" claim.
>
>  I'm curious too about the effects of compiler options.
>  I also remember that somebody was wondering whether the use of GCC's
>  __builtin_expect would make a difference.
>
>  --
>  Dirk
>