1. Binding Speed
- Posted by Mike <mdeland at NWINFO.NET> Apr 05, 1998
- 720 views
I was wondering if anyone else has had the following happen to them: I'm in the middle of writing a rather complex program and I wanted to beta test it on another computer, so I bound the program into an exe to transfer it over and run it. When I did that the program seemed to bog down...Upon further investigation, I discovered that this bound version indeed ran -slower- (by a considerable percentage) than the unbound version (tested on the same machine, same environment...etc) Now, this seems not only counterintutive but rather odd infact. So....has anyone else experienced this? Has anyone else actually ran any speed tests on bound versus unbound programs? If so, what were the results? Does anyone care to begin a series of new speed tests on this phenomenon? Personal Note: I have a feeling that the differences will be too slight to notice on small programs...Larger, more complex proggies, I believe, will be needed to run the speed tests... *clinks glass* Here's to starting a new thread :) l8tr Mike -------------------------------------- If it wasn't for typos, I'd never get any coding done at all. ;)
2. Re: Binding Speed
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at EMAIL.MSN.COM> Apr 05, 1998
- 700 views
- Last edited Apr 06, 1998
Mike wrote: > I'm in the middle of writing a rather complex program and > I wanted to beta test it on another computer, so I bound the > program into an exe to transfer it over and run it. When I did > that the program seemed to bog down... > Upon further investigation, I discovered that > this bound version indeed ran -slower- > (by a considerable percentage) > than the unbound version (tested on the same machine, > same environment...etc) There is one situation that I can think of where a bound program might run a bit slower than the unbound version. That would be if you used the "-hide_strings" option, that converts strings "...." into equivalent sequences of numbers {.....}. Although the two forms are logically equivalent, there is an optimization that is only performed on strings in the "...." form. I think you'd have to have a "...." string converted to a {....} string inside a critical loop to notice a difference. If you don't hide the strings when you bind, I'd be very surprised if you had any slow down at all. There's also a weird effect that I've only seen once. It has nothing to do with Euphoria, but on a Pentium you can sometimes get an unfortunate combination of memory addresses, such that not all of the critical variables in the loop can be kept in the data cache simultaneously. A trivial change to a program can make this happen, or make it go away. I once saw the performance of a Euphoria loop drop by a factor of 6 all of a sudden, just because the variable addresses changed slightly and competed for the same cache slot. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software