In <1992Aug18.140858.3484@crd.ge.com> davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:

quoted text
>In article <1992Aug18.080437.3944@fys.ruu.nl>, hooft@fys.ruu.nl (Rob Hooft) writes:
>| In <NOP.92Aug17135014@theory.Mankato.MSUS.EDU> nop@theory.Mankato.MSUS.EDU (Jay A. Carlson) writes:
>| 
>| >I'm not sure that all this trouble is worth it.  Does anyone have any
>| >hard data on the performance loss of jump tables?
>| 

quoted text
>| I didn't believe this, so I repeated it many times. Is there any one
>| who has an explanation for the fact that the '-jump'ed executable is
>| 3% faster? Could this be caused by a difference in the crt0.o?

quoted text
>  Have you timed this with the time command (I posted one about 2 weeks
>ago to tsx and banjo, hope it's up by now on tsx at least)? I have a
>thought that the jump may be effecting the ratio of user/sys time (no, I
>don't know how) and that would show it. I believe the flops uses the
>user CPU to calculate performance, not the total.

quoted text
>  That would also show the realtime, which I would expect to go up.

Yes, that is what I expect too, but I didn't expect the usertime to go
down at all, certainly not by over 0.5 seconds. We're talking a
program here that runs for 25 hard CPU-seconds! I'll be timing again
this evening, and might even retry the BYTE-bench this time. Twice,
that is. I guess I'll be using jump-libs for the rest of my linux-life....

-- 
Rob Hooft, Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research, 
Chemistry department University of Utrecht, the Netherlands
hooft@hutruu54.bitnet hooft@chem.ruu.nl hooft@fys.ruu.nl hooft@cc.ruu.nl