[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] Lua BitOp 1.0.0 released
- From: Ignacio Burgueño <ignaciob@...>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:03:15 -0200
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
Nope, I compiled with MSVC 6 and /MD /O2 flags. But I do have API
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
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.