On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:59:39PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> On 2012-09-04 23:43, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> >On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> >>I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on Fr
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:59:39PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-09-04 23:43, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> >>I recently performed a series of compiler performance tests on FreeBSD
> >>10.0-CURRENT, particularly comparing gcc 4.2.1
On 2012-09-04 23:43, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
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 benchmark is some
TB --- 2012-09-04 21:47:04 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-09-04 21:47:04 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:02:06PM +0200, Davide Italiano wrote:
> [trimming old mails]
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > here are the results
> >
> > # pmccontrol -L
> > SOFT
> > CLOCK.STAT
> > CLOCK.HARD
> > LOCK.FAILED
> > PAGE_FAULT.WRITE
> > PAGE_FAULT.READ
> >
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:39:40PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>
> 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 abou
On 09/04/12 22:39, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> 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,
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.
[trimming old mails]
>
> Hi,
>
> here are the results
>
> # pmccontrol -L
> SOFT
> CLOCK.STAT
> CLOCK.HARD
> LOCK.FAILED
> PAGE_FAULT.WRITE
> PAGE_FAULT.READ
> PAGE_FAULT.ALL
>
> # pmcstat -SOFF_CORE_RESPONSE_0,rsp=REQ_DMND_DATA_RD+RES_ANY -w1 -T
> p
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:35:07AM +0200, Fabien Thomas wrote:
>
> Le 3 sept. 2012 à 23:23, Baptiste Daroussin a écrit :
>
> > On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 02:04:21PM +0200, Fabien Thomas wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >> Find a patch that add Intel Ivy Bridge support to hwpmc(9).
> >> The patch also sup
On Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:00:39 am Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 02:49:07PM +0200, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Konstantin Belousov
wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 12:35:08PM +0200, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >>
On 9/3/2012 10:45 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> These errors are a problem with bsd.port.mk. I've been meaning to write
> up a patch for a while now and get to bapt for testing. If he doesn't
> get to it first, I'll get one submitted soon.
I've filed ports/171326 to address.
The warnings are harmles
I have a Intel Sandy Bridge system that reports that it has SMT cores
instead of HTT(under a derivative of FreeBSD 8.2). I'll admit that I
don't at all understand the distinction between the two -- I thought
that HTT was just Intel's name for SMT. In any case, is there any
reason that machdep.hyp
I have a full EISA system and a dozen of these cards, and other EISA cards, if
anybody wants to take up tilting at that windmill. I'm in Denver CO, and will
drive it to your house, within reason. The system is a dual CPU 533MHz Digital
system with all the config disks, etc, you need to support
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Fabien Thomas wrote:
>
> Le 3 sept. 2012 à 23:23, Baptiste Daroussin a écrit :
>
>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 02:04:21PM +0200, Fabien Thomas wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Find a patch that add Intel Ivy Bridge support to hwpmc(9).
>>> The patch also support offcore RS
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 03:14:42AM -0400, AN wrote:
> FreeBSD FBSD10 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #18 r240078: Mon Sep 3
> 17:41:46 EDT 2012 root@FBSD10:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL amd64
>
> # cat /etc/make.conf
> OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT=f10
> QT4_OPTIONS= QGTKSTYLE
>
> # added by
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 02:49:07PM +0200, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 12:35:08PM +0200, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I found out that while the running excecutables and a dynamic linker
> >> are p
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 12:35:08PM +0200, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I found out that while the running excecutables and a dynamic linker
>> are protected against writing (ETXTBSY), the loaded shared libraries
>> are not prote
Le 3 sept. 2012 à 23:23, Baptiste Daroussin a écrit :
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 02:04:21PM +0200, Fabien Thomas wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Find a patch that add Intel Ivy Bridge support to hwpmc(9).
>> The patch also support offcore RSP token for Sandy Bridge.
>> Note: No uncore support.
>>
>> T
20 matches
Mail list logo