From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31864 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2004 13:14:09 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 24 Sep 2004 13:14:09 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CAptp-0000DJ-9T for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:14:09 +0000 Received: (qmail 19203 invoked by uid 89); 24 Sep 2004 13:14:08 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 28572 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2004 13:14:08 +0000 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:10:36 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <20040924141036.2153b879@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20040924144203.777bc93a.spider@gentoo.org> References: <4151A04F.5090304@comcast.net> <41524A85.1020402@comcast.net> <1095917198.29656.64.camel@simple> <415289CF.7070708@gentoo.org> <4152D819.4070205@gentoo.org> <415392BD.1010905@comcast.net> <1096005720.12931.107.camel@simple> <4153BFF0.4000005@comcast.net> <13cc2f7804092400233f19f417@mail.gmail.com> <20040924144203.777bc93a.spider@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12a (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Signature=_Fri__24_Sep_2004_14_10_36_+0100_ph9btV65g.0MKL2h" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stack smash protected daemons X-Archives-Salt: d2909d3b-e1c6-4488-9dd6-bcc91f131f0d X-Archives-Hash: e7f9e31f2153c4ad4f874005f5ab4ce8 --Signature=_Fri__24_Sep_2004_14_10_36_+0100_ph9btV65g.0MKL2h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:42:03 +0200 Spider wrote: | Can somone take the time to benchmark this properly though? we rather | shouldn't have many "oh this sucks 15% cpu" rumours without | substance. both string and integer, small and large software. My measurements suggest that it's usually not significant, except on things which do lots of string ops. Vim's syntax highlighting takes a ~7% hit, for example, which is pretty sucky when it's running interactively. A rather crude way to test: vim -U NONE -u NONE -i NONE -c ':syntax on | :let g:i=0 | :while (g:i < 1000) | :let g:i=g:i+1 | :syntax sync fromstart | :syntax clear | :setfiletype c | :endwhile' -c ':qa!' ~/cvs/vim/src/regexp.c The box in question is a p4m locked to 1200MHz. The CFLAGS I use are "-O2 -march=pentium4 -fomit-frame-pointer -D__CIARANM_WAS_HERE__ -pipe". It's running stable x86. Stuff that just crunches numbers is entirely unaffected. Stuff that crunches numbers with tight deep recursive calls is mildly affected. The only place I see it doing really undesirable things to performance is where lots of string ops are going on. (Before someone asks... The -D flag is so that I can catch possible new candidates for bug 59506) -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm --Signature=_Fri__24_Sep_2004_14_10_36_+0100_ph9btV65g.0MKL2h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBVBzV96zL6DUtXhERArf4AKDZvZkQPxdP8BdJxpnYpIj4xpGO/QCg2kig 8+W85LeZEre1wXEbH9kbxs4= =8/rE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Fri__24_Sep_2004_14_10_36_+0100_ph9btV65g.0MKL2h--