search for: slowering

On 16 November 2016 at 15:52, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > I will do a quick benchmark run. On a mac pro (running linux) the results I got with all cores available: firefox master 7.146418217 patch 5.304271767 1.34729488437x faster firefox-gc master 7.316743822 patch 5.46436812 1.33899174824x faster chromium master 4.265597914 patch

SHA1 in LLVM is *very* naive, any improvement is welcome there! It think Amaury pointed it originally and he had an alternative implementation IIRC. — Mehdi > On Nov 16, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > By the way, while running benchmark, I found that our SHA1 function seems much slower than the one in gold. gold slowed down by

The current implementation was “copy/pasted” from somewhere (it was explicitly public domain). > On Nov 16, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > Can we just copy-and-paste optimized code from somewhere? > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > SHA1 in LLVM is

Hi Steven- Nice, but will this not break Windows? From an initial glance over your patch, it seems to assume the existence of mmap() in some form or other. Alistair On 8 Aug 2010, at 03:05, Steven Noonan wrote: > Hi folks, > > I've been doing work on memory reduction in Unladen Swallow, and > during testing, LiveRanges seemed to be consuming one of the largest > chunks of

Hi folks, I've been doing work on memory reduction in Unladen Swallow, and during testing, LiveRanges seemed to be consuming one of the largest chunks of memory. I wrote a replacement allocator for use by BumpPtrAllocator which uses mmap()/munmap() in place of malloc()/free(). It has worked flawlessly in testing, and reduces memory usage quite nicely in Unladen Swallow. The code is available

In Asterisk 1.6, there is an option to use the 'new g.711 algorithm'. "Use the NEW ulaw/alaw codec's (slower, but cleaner)" By slower does this mean more 'expensive', or does it instead mean that there will be more algorithmic latency? Both? Can anyone speak to the relative increases? With regard to accuracy, can anyone speak to what kind of situation might

Hi I updated my clone of the LLVM github mirror today and I am finding that the JIT compilation is now 2-3 times slower. The last time I refreshed was maybe 2 weeks ago. Is there a known change that would explain this? This is on Windows 8.1 64-bit. I am using MCJIT. Thanks and Regards Dibyendu

Hi, It has been observed that rsync push mode is much slower when compared to pull (On Identical scenarios). Building/receiving file list takes almost same time. But data transfer is much slower, whose transfer ratios are ranging from 1:3 to 1:5. On pull operation data transfer speed is consistently around 3.5 MB/Sec and it reached 10 MB/Sec. However, on push the maximum it could reach is

On Thursday 19 November 2009 19:48:18 Owen Anderson wrote: > On Nov 19, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > >> In this case, the assertion that LLVM is slow is correct: it's > >> definitely slower than a non-optimizing compiler. > > > > I'm *very* surprised by this and will test it myself... I've tested it and LLVM is indeed 2x slower to compile,

On Nov 19, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > >> In this case, the assertion that LLVM is slow is correct: it's >> definitely slower than a non-optimizing compiler. > > I'm *very* surprised by this and will test it myself... Compared to a compiler in the same category as PCC, whose pinnacle of optimization is doing register allocation? I'm not

Hi, I am seeing that doc = index[''mykey''] index.update ''mykey'', doc is about 10 times slower than doc = Document.new doc[''id''] = ''mykey'' index << doc It looks like #update is _much_ slower that #<<. Is it as expected? Sergei. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Hi all, I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1 and gcc 4.7.1 against clang 3.1 and clang 3.2. The attached text file[1] contains more information about the tests, some semi-cooked performance data, and my conclusions. Any errors and omissions are also my fault, so if you notice them, please let me know. The

If you could create a single executable with a repro, and publish them somewhere (both the old llvm and new one which is slower), we could look at it. It's hard to say otherwise unless someone truly knows of a change. I'm interested in looking at this, because my experience has been opposite, compile times improved for my compiler in the past month. So I'm inclined to understand what

Is this a protocol issue? A decade ago I saw writes to small files less than 16k were awful, because the cost of opening and other file ops dwarfed writing actual content. So very small files should be slow, but these files are 10mb each. Or is this a Windows issue? If so, what's causing the problem? Just trying to understand. On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 2:39 PM Ralph Boehme <slow at

I tried RC16 from RC7 and like other releases since RC7 it is significantly slower. I'm still trying to figure out why. But I have again switched back. Do new version take up a lot more ram perhaps? I'm running with a gig of ram, and I'm running a few other apps. It's not a fast computer, just an old 754 pin semptron. But the point is that RC7 runs a lot faster than RC16.

Hi Is 1.0 alpha3 a bit slower than the dovecot-1.0.stable branch? Regards Daniel

i Have noticed that wine runs slower on x64 machines why is that? is there any way to overcome it?

I have a simple test program which encodes, decodes and displays a single video stream ( at 2-3 fps ). It takes about 15% of CPU time when it uses DivX codec, but 35% when the VP31 codec is active. Is there any way to speed encoding/decoding with VP31 ? Or maybe VP31 is just much slower than DivX ? Kamil <p>--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage:

On 11 July 2015 at 13:14, Caldarale, Charles R <Chuck.Caldarale at unisys.com> wrote: >> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] >> On Behalf Of Dibyendu Majumdar >> Subject: [LLVMdev] JIT compilation 2-3 times slower in latest LLVM snapshot > >> I updated my clone of the LLVM github mirror today and I am finding >> that

Hello, I am no programmer at all. I have dovecot set up on two very similar machines. On one of the boxes, the dovecot server has recently been showing slower response times. It feels slower. Where it is slower, dovecot works as an auth server for postfix. I have replaced exim with postfix on that box and I think since then dovecot started to slow down. On the other machine the MTA is exim.