----- Original Message ----- From: "Chad Nelson" <chad.thecomfychair@gmail.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 10:50 PM Subject: [boost] [xint] Boost.Move vs Copy-on-Write timings
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I've done some further testing, eliminating the Boost.Thread locking on the random number generator as a factor, as promised earlier today. Here are the raw timings:
(Debug build) Baseline: 29.4, 36.0, 32.8 (32.73) GCC move: 32.0, 35.3, 31.2 (32.83) Emulated Move: 28.4, 33.8, 28.4 (30.20) Copy-on-write: 27.3, 25.0, 26.9 (26.40)
(Release build) Baseline: 10.5, 12.5, 10.6 (11.20) GCC move: 11.3, 13.0, 10.4 (11.57) Emulated move: 10.0, 10.8, 9.7 (10.17) Copy-on-write: 8.5, 8.4, 9.4 ( 8.77)
Times are measured in seconds, using two sets of ten 2048-bit integers. The tests consisted of adding each of those pairs of numbers together 10,000 times, multiplying them 10,000 times, and doing a "mulmod" operation on them (with a third randomly-generated 2048-bit modulus argument) 1,000 times. Each test was run three times, under as close to identical situations as I could manage, with the raw results (rounded to the nearest tenth of a second) in the first three columns; the fourth column is the average of the three.
Could you share the test programm so we can test with other compilers or architectures? Could you add some figures? * How many xint::integer copies? * How many xint::integer moves? * How many writes? 0?
The compiler used was GCC 4.4.3, under Ubuntu Linux 10.04. The release build used -O2 optimization; the debug build used none. Otherwise, the settings were left at their defaults, except where noted below.
Could you give figures with -O3? or bjam variant=release? Best, Vicente