Re: side-by-side Re: BYTE Unix Benchmarks Version 3.6

From: Paolo Ciarrocchi (ciarrocchi@linuxmail.org)
Date: Fri Sep 06 2002 - 02:44:38 EST

Next message: Paolo Ciarrocchi: "Re: BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1.0)"
Previous message: David S. Miller: "Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000"
Maybe in reply to: bert hubert: "side-by-side Re: BYTE Unix Benchmarks Version 3.6"
Next in thread: Paolo Ciarrocchi: "Re: side-by-side Re: BYTE Unix Benchmarks Version 3.6"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de>

[...]
> What kind of arithmetic is this? Why on earth would arithmetic vary
> from one kernel to another?

Yep, you are right!
There is something wrong in that test.
Look at my new tests I've just post using Unix Benchmarks Version 4.1, they more intersting.

Ciao,
Paolo

-- Get your free email from www.linuxmail.org

Powered by Outblaze - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Paolo Ciarrocchi: "Re: BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1.0)"
Previous message: David S. Miller: "Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000"
Maybe in reply to: bert hubert: "side-by-side Re: BYTE Unix Benchmarks Version 3.6"
Next in thread: Paolo Ciarrocchi: "Re: side-by-side Re: BYTE Unix Benchmarks Version 3.6"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:28 EST