about sluggines on linux

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

about sluggines on linux

Stéphane Ducasse
hi guys

Arturo told me that pharo was looking slow on his machine.
I could not find the time to check if this was related with the display depth.
Or that pharo was just slow compared to VW.
Arturo can you let us know.

Stef
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about sluggines on linux

Damien Cassou
Hi Arturo,

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Arturo told me that pharo was looking slow on his machine.

I'm using Pharo on Ubuntu 9.10 and experience no problem. Could you
please try by turning off Compiz?

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them
popular by not having them." James Iry

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about sluggines on linux

Stéphane Ducasse

On Nov 29, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Arturo Zambrano wrote:

> Ok, I tried without compiz and both Pharo and X11 using 16 bpp: It works better (still slow if compared to VW). For example: when pressing right button on the world, it takes almost a second  for the popup menu to show up. Is that normal?

normally not

> I didn't used it in another platform, I will try to give it a try under Windows to see if speed is the same.

Thanks
>
> Is there a particular reason for Pharo not supporting 24bpp?

time and money.

> I think all nvidia drivers for linux works up to 24bpp, but this depth is not listed
> in Pharo (using 16 bits looks a bit ugly)


normally displayScreen only supports ... 8, 16 or 32 bits

>
>
> regards.
> art
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Arturo Zambrano <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Sorry, I was busy and I could not respond before.
>
> I found it really slow while using compiz at 24bpp, on top a of Gentoo 64 bit box (turion 2dual core 2Ghz).
>
> I will use it now without compiz and let you know if it behaves better.
>
> Do you have any performance test that I can run so  that I have "numbers" to report? Because
> the slowness could be a subjective impression as I usually run VisualWorks.
>
> regards
> art
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Damien Cassou <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Arturo,
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Arturo told me that pharo was looking slow on his machine.
>
> I'm using Pharo on Ubuntu 9.10 and experience no problem. Could you
> please try by turning off Compiz?
>
> --
> Damien Cassou
> http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
>
> "Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them
> popular by not having them." James Iry
>
>


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about sluggines on linux

johnmci

On 2009-11-30, at 2:42 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

>
> On Nov 29, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Arturo Zambrano wrote:
>
>> Ok, I tried without compiz and both Pharo and X11 using 16 bpp: It works better (still slow if compared to VW). For example: when pressing right button on the world, it takes almost a second  for the popup menu to show up. Is that normal?
>
> normally not
>
>> I didn't used it in another platform, I will try to give it a try under Windows to see if speed is the same.
>
> Thanks

Please open a transcript and do
10 timesRepeat: [Transcript show: 1 tinyBenchmarks printString;cr]

report the numbers, also how many ghz your machine CPU is.


>>
>> Is there a particular reason for Pharo not supporting 24bpp?
>
> time and money.
>
>> I think all nvidia drivers for linux works up to 24bpp, but this depth is not listed
>> in Pharo (using 16 bits looks a bit ugly)
>
>
> normally displayScreen only supports ... 8, 16 or 32 bits

I think 24 bpp means 32bit words 8 bits R 8 bits G 8 bits B and 8 bits ignored which would be Alpha.

Try doing
Transcript cr;show:
        [Display fillWhite. 1 to: 4 do: [:i | Pen new color: i; turn: 90*i; dragon: 14] ] timeToRun.
        Display restore.

report back how big the number is printed to the transcript


--
===========================================================================
John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>   Twitter:  squeaker68882
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
===========================================================================





_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about sluggines on linux

johnmci

On 2009-12-05, at 3:32 PM, Arturo Zambrano wrote:

> '215851602 bytecodes/sec; 6194336 sends/sec'
>
> Machine: Linux donner2 2.6.28-tuxonice-r10 #8 SMP Sun Nov 8 09:50:51 ART 2009 x86_64 AMD Turion(tm) 64 X2 TL-60 AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux.   2GHz
>

That speed is 1/2 of my 2.33Ghz intel core 2 Duo

'533333333 bytecodes/sec; 12157397 sends/sec'

>
> Try doing
> Transcript cr;show:
>        [Display fillWhite. 1 to: 4 do: [:i | Pen new color: i; turn: 90*i; dragon: 14] ] timeToRun.
>        Display restore.
>
> report back how big the number is printed to the transcript
>
> 1897

This number is fine

--
===========================================================================
John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>   Twitter:  squeaker68882
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
===========================================================================





_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about sluggines on linux

Stéphane Ducasse
Hola Arthuro
Here this is raining and windy :) (and cold)

> '215851602 bytecodes/sec; 6194336 sends/sec'
>>
>> Machine: Linux donner2 2.6.28-tuxonice-r10 #8 SMP Sun Nov 8 09:50:51 ART 2009 x86_64 AMD Turion(tm) 64 X2 TL-60 AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux.   2GHz
>>
>
> That speed is 1/2 of my 2.33Ghz intel core 2 Duo
>
> '533333333 bytecodes/sec; 12157397 sends/sec'

2.56 Ghz intel core 2 Duo with latest 1.1 image

'576901408 bytecodes/sec; 12762744 sends/sec'

>
>> Try doing
>> Transcript cr;show:
>>       [Display fillWhite. 1 to: 4 do: [:i | Pen new color: i; turn: 90*i; dragon: 14] ] timeToRun.
>>       Display restore.
>> report back how big the number is printed to the transcript
>>
>> 1897
>
> This number is fine

1676

The conclusion is that we should continue to work on making it faster.

Arthuro
        using 1.1
        changing the theme
        using StrikeFont installDejaVu
        and setting up the fonts give a better feel

Does anybody know a software slowing down a mac (because the problem is that I'm not sure that I can run a closure VM on a old mac I have)
so that we could do some tests on slow machines?

Stef





_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about sluggines on linux

johnmci
Ok, well you don' t need to run special software. You just need to use a non-optimized VM
The *worst* case is turn 32bit mode on, and use Rosetta
I've put a non-optimized VM in the experimental folder/COCOA
via
http://smalltalkconsulting.com/squeak.html
called
Squeak V5 SLOW VERSION FOR TESTING DO NOT USE FOR GENERAL USE.app.zip
That gives you something that is like 8 or 10 times slower than normal.

Perhaps someone can run some benchmarks other than tinybenchmarks to confirm?

64bit mode, 32bit image

'52805280 bytecodes/sec; 1763285 sends/sec'
'55030094 bytecodes/sec; 1738242 sends/sec'
'57040998 bytecodes/sec; 1704137 sends/sec'
'57091882 bytecodes/sec; 1741615 sends/sec'
'57040998 bytecodes/sec; 1736000 sends/sec'
'56888888 bytecodes/sec; 1765598 sends/sec'
'57193923 bytecodes/sec; 1749536 sends/sec'
'57142857 bytecodes/sec; 1732649 sends/sec'
'56487202 bytecodes/sec; 1722672 sends/sec'
'55797733 bytecodes/sec; 1629865 sends/sec'

32bit mode via Get Info , 32bit image
'62439024 bytecodes/sec; 1779601 sends/sec'
'62439024 bytecodes/sec; 1780778 sends/sec'
'63054187 bytecodes/sec; 1787873 sends/sec'
'61895551 bytecodes/sec; 1796222 sends/sec'
'62930186 bytecodes/sec; 1804649 sends/sec'
'62439024 bytecodes/sec; 1818053 sends/sec'
'62317429 bytecodes/sec; 1826687 sends/sec'
'62930186 bytecodes/sec; 1831657 sends/sec'
'63178677 bytecodes/sec; 1807071 sends/sec'
'62015503 bytecodes/sec; 1815601 sends/sec'

32bit mode via Get Info , 32bit image,  Rosette mode aka PowerPC emulation on MacIntel
'38905775 bytecodes/sec; 1264497 sends/sec'
'39191671 bytecodes/sec; 1265459 sends/sec'
'39215686 bytecodes/sec; 1235396 sends/sec'
'39384615 bytecodes/sec; 1241850 sends/sec'
'39000609 bytecodes/sec; 1274179 sends/sec'
'39384615 bytecodes/sec; 1256857 sends/sec'
'39287906 bytecodes/sec; 1247435 sends/sec'
'39825762 bytecodes/sec; 1238154 sends/sec'
'39312039 bytecodes/sec; 1245568 sends/sec'
'38787878 bytecodes/sec; 1260665 sends/sec'

Normally, optimized
64bit mode, 32bit image CHEATING
'433530906 bytecodes/sec; 13051576 sends/sec'
'432432432 bytecodes/sec; 13042352 sends/sec'
'433898305 bytecodes/sec; 13051576 sends/sec'
'433530906 bytecodes/sec; 13042352 sends/sec'
'433898305 bytecodes/sec; 12941745 sends/sec'
'433898305 bytecodes/sec; 13023944 sends/sec'
'414910858 bytecodes/sec; 12815922 sends/sec'
'433898305 bytecodes/sec; 13005587 sends/sec'
'433164128 bytecodes/sec; 13005587 sends/sec'
'434266327 bytecodes/sec; 12444321 sends/sec'



On 2009-12-06, at 2:58 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

> Ok excellent then. I should chekc because I have first generation powerbook around.
>
> On PC they have a tools that slow donw a computer to get the same power as an old one.

>>> The conclusion is that we should continue to work on making it faster.
>>>
>>> Arthuro
>>> using 1.1
>>> changing the theme
>>> using StrikeFont installDejaVu
>>> and setting up the fonts give a better feel
>>>
>>> Does anybody know a software slowing down a mac (because the problem is that
>>> I'm not sure that I can run a closure VM on a old mac I have)
>>> so that we could do some tests on slow machines?
>>>
>>> Stef
>>>

--
===========================================================================
John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>   Twitter:  squeaker68882
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
===========================================================================





_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about sluggines on linux

Stéphane Ducasse
this is nice I will give a try thursday (now travelling).
Stef
On Dec 6, 2009, at 11:24 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:

> Ok, well you don' t need to run special software. You just need to use a non-optimized VM
> The *worst* case is turn 32bit mode on, and use Rosetta
> I've put a non-optimized VM in the experimental folder/COCOA
> via
> http://smalltalkconsulting.com/squeak.html
> called
> Squeak V5 SLOW VERSION FOR TESTING DO NOT USE FOR GENERAL USE.app.zip
> That gives you something that is like 8 or 10 times slower than normal.
>
> Perhaps someone can run some benchmarks other than tinybenchmarks to confirm?
>
> 64bit mode, 32bit image
>
> '52805280 bytecodes/sec; 1763285 sends/sec'
> '55030094 bytecodes/sec; 1738242 sends/sec'
> '57040998 bytecodes/sec; 1704137 sends/sec'
> '57091882 bytecodes/sec; 1741615 sends/sec'
> '57040998 bytecodes/sec; 1736000 sends/sec'
> '56888888 bytecodes/sec; 1765598 sends/sec'
> '57193923 bytecodes/sec; 1749536 sends/sec'
> '57142857 bytecodes/sec; 1732649 sends/sec'
> '56487202 bytecodes/sec; 1722672 sends/sec'
> '55797733 bytecodes/sec; 1629865 sends/sec'
>
> 32bit mode via Get Info , 32bit image
> '62439024 bytecodes/sec; 1779601 sends/sec'
> '62439024 bytecodes/sec; 1780778 sends/sec'
> '63054187 bytecodes/sec; 1787873 sends/sec'
> '61895551 bytecodes/sec; 1796222 sends/sec'
> '62930186 bytecodes/sec; 1804649 sends/sec'
> '62439024 bytecodes/sec; 1818053 sends/sec'
> '62317429 bytecodes/sec; 1826687 sends/sec'
> '62930186 bytecodes/sec; 1831657 sends/sec'
> '63178677 bytecodes/sec; 1807071 sends/sec'
> '62015503 bytecodes/sec; 1815601 sends/sec'
>
> 32bit mode via Get Info , 32bit image,  Rosette mode aka PowerPC emulation on MacIntel
> '38905775 bytecodes/sec; 1264497 sends/sec'
> '39191671 bytecodes/sec; 1265459 sends/sec'
> '39215686 bytecodes/sec; 1235396 sends/sec'
> '39384615 bytecodes/sec; 1241850 sends/sec'
> '39000609 bytecodes/sec; 1274179 sends/sec'
> '39384615 bytecodes/sec; 1256857 sends/sec'
> '39287906 bytecodes/sec; 1247435 sends/sec'
> '39825762 bytecodes/sec; 1238154 sends/sec'
> '39312039 bytecodes/sec; 1245568 sends/sec'
> '38787878 bytecodes/sec; 1260665 sends/sec'
>
> Normally, optimized
> 64bit mode, 32bit image CHEATING
> '433530906 bytecodes/sec; 13051576 sends/sec'
> '432432432 bytecodes/sec; 13042352 sends/sec'
> '433898305 bytecodes/sec; 13051576 sends/sec'
> '433530906 bytecodes/sec; 13042352 sends/sec'
> '433898305 bytecodes/sec; 12941745 sends/sec'
> '433898305 bytecodes/sec; 13023944 sends/sec'
> '414910858 bytecodes/sec; 12815922 sends/sec'
> '433898305 bytecodes/sec; 13005587 sends/sec'
> '433164128 bytecodes/sec; 13005587 sends/sec'
> '434266327 bytecodes/sec; 12444321 sends/sec'
>
>
>
> On 2009-12-06, at 2:58 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>> Ok excellent then. I should chekc because I have first generation powerbook around.
>>
>> On PC they have a tools that slow donw a computer to get the same power as an old one.
>
>>>> The conclusion is that we should continue to work on making it faster.
>>>>
>>>> Arthuro
>>>> using 1.1
>>>> changing the theme
>>>> using StrikeFont installDejaVu
>>>> and setting up the fonts give a better feel
>>>>
>>>> Does anybody know a software slowing down a mac (because the problem is that
>>>> I'm not sure that I can run a closure VM on a old mac I have)
>>>> so that we could do some tests on slow machines?
>>>>
>>>> Stef
>>>>
>
> --
> ===========================================================================
> John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>   Twitter:  squeaker68882
> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
> ===========================================================================
>
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about sluggines on linux

Stéphane Ducasse
In reply to this post by johnmci
this is nice I will give a try thursday (now travelling).
Stef
On Dec 6, 2009, at 11:24 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:

> Ok, well you don' t need to run special software. You just need to use a non-optimized VM
> The *worst* case is turn 32bit mode on, and use Rosetta
> I've put a non-optimized VM in the experimental folder/COCOA
> via
> http://smalltalkconsulting.com/squeak.html
> called
> Squeak V5 SLOW VERSION FOR TESTING DO NOT USE FOR GENERAL USE.app.zip
> That gives you something that is like 8 or 10 times slower than normal.
>
> Perhaps someone can run some benchmarks other than tinybenchmarks to confirm?
>
> 64bit mode, 32bit image
>
> '52805280 bytecodes/sec; 1763285 sends/sec'
> '55030094 bytecodes/sec; 1738242 sends/sec'
> '57040998 bytecodes/sec; 1704137 sends/sec'
> '57091882 bytecodes/sec; 1741615 sends/sec'
> '57040998 bytecodes/sec; 1736000 sends/sec'
> '56888888 bytecodes/sec; 1765598 sends/sec'
> '57193923 bytecodes/sec; 1749536 sends/sec'
> '57142857 bytecodes/sec; 1732649 sends/sec'
> '56487202 bytecodes/sec; 1722672 sends/sec'
> '55797733 bytecodes/sec; 1629865 sends/sec'
>
> 32bit mode via Get Info , 32bit image
> '62439024 bytecodes/sec; 1779601 sends/sec'
> '62439024 bytecodes/sec; 1780778 sends/sec'
> '63054187 bytecodes/sec; 1787873 sends/sec'
> '61895551 bytecodes/sec; 1796222 sends/sec'
> '62930186 bytecodes/sec; 1804649 sends/sec'
> '62439024 bytecodes/sec; 1818053 sends/sec'
> '62317429 bytecodes/sec; 1826687 sends/sec'
> '62930186 bytecodes/sec; 1831657 sends/sec'
> '63178677 bytecodes/sec; 1807071 sends/sec'
> '62015503 bytecodes/sec; 1815601 sends/sec'
>
> 32bit mode via Get Info , 32bit image,  Rosette mode aka PowerPC emulation on MacIntel
> '38905775 bytecodes/sec; 1264497 sends/sec'
> '39191671 bytecodes/sec; 1265459 sends/sec'
> '39215686 bytecodes/sec; 1235396 sends/sec'
> '39384615 bytecodes/sec; 1241850 sends/sec'
> '39000609 bytecodes/sec; 1274179 sends/sec'
> '39384615 bytecodes/sec; 1256857 sends/sec'
> '39287906 bytecodes/sec; 1247435 sends/sec'
> '39825762 bytecodes/sec; 1238154 sends/sec'
> '39312039 bytecodes/sec; 1245568 sends/sec'
> '38787878 bytecodes/sec; 1260665 sends/sec'
>
> Normally, optimized
> 64bit mode, 32bit image CHEATING
> '433530906 bytecodes/sec; 13051576 sends/sec'
> '432432432 bytecodes/sec; 13042352 sends/sec'
> '433898305 bytecodes/sec; 13051576 sends/sec'
> '433530906 bytecodes/sec; 13042352 sends/sec'
> '433898305 bytecodes/sec; 12941745 sends/sec'
> '433898305 bytecodes/sec; 13023944 sends/sec'
> '414910858 bytecodes/sec; 12815922 sends/sec'
> '433898305 bytecodes/sec; 13005587 sends/sec'
> '433164128 bytecodes/sec; 13005587 sends/sec'
> '434266327 bytecodes/sec; 12444321 sends/sec'
>
>
>
> On 2009-12-06, at 2:58 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>> Ok excellent then. I should chekc because I have first generation powerbook around.
>>
>> On PC they have a tools that slow donw a computer to get the same power as an old one.
>
>>>> The conclusion is that we should continue to work on making it faster.
>>>>
>>>> Arthuro
>>>> using 1.1
>>>> changing the theme
>>>> using StrikeFont installDejaVu
>>>> and setting up the fonts give a better feel
>>>>
>>>> Does anybody know a software slowing down a mac (because the problem is that
>>>> I'm not sure that I can run a closure VM on a old mac I have)
>>>> so that we could do some tests on slow machines?
>>>>
>>>> Stef
>>>>
>
> --
> ===========================================================================
> John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>   Twitter:  squeaker68882
> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
> ===========================================================================
>
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about sluggines on linux

Stéphane Ducasse
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
No problem.


> Hi Stef,
>  I dind't see your email until today, when I came back to this topic! Don't know why it was marked as read :(.
> Just to report the same test under Vista (obviously, on the same machine).
>
> '225948808 bytecodes/sec; 6804203 sends/sec'
>

they are coherent with the previous ones.

> '533333333 bytecodes/sec; 12157397 sends/sec'

and clearly and indication that we should get also slower machines to kick us to optimize
or rethink certain decisions.

Stef
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about sluggines on linux

Schwab,Wilhelm K
Stef,

I have a slow linux box that stands ready to help, albeit at a snail's pace.

Bill



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stéphane Ducasse
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 5:29 AM
To: Arturo Zambrano
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] about sluggines on linux

No problem.


> Hi Stef,
>  I dind't see your email until today, when I came back to this topic! Don't know why it was marked as read :(.
> Just to report the same test under Vista (obviously, on the same machine).
>
> '225948808 bytecodes/sec; 6804203 sends/sec'
>

they are coherent with the previous ones.

> '533333333 bytecodes/sec; 12157397 sends/sec'

and clearly and indication that we should get also slower machines to kick us to optimize or rethink certain decisions.

Stef
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: about sluggines on linux

johnmci
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
Please note this could be a problem with the Windows VM you are using. Please check with the
Windows VM suport person for guidance if the numbers appear rational for the machine you are using.

In general the tinybenchmark reports how good the compiler choices has optimized the main interpreter loop,
or points out the inability of the Squeak VM to get 100% of the CPU when running the benchmark,
or points out that the image is running lots of higher priority smalltalk process that interfere with the benchmark.

But in general I would expect a Squeak image or a Pharo image to post the name numbers when using
the same VM on the same machine.   Obviously someone could confirm that.


On 2009-12-18, at 2:28 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

> No problem.
>
>
>> Hi Stef,
>> I dind't see your email until today, when I came back to this topic! Don't know why it was marked as read :(.
>> Just to report the same test under Vista (obviously, on the same machine).
>>
>> '225948808 bytecodes/sec; 6804203 sends/sec'
>>
>
> they are coherent with the previous ones.
>
>> '533333333 bytecodes/sec; 12157397 sends/sec'
>
> and clearly and indication that we should get also slower machines to kick us to optimize
> or rethink certain decisions.
>
> Stef

--
===========================================================================
John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>   Twitter:  squeaker68882
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
===========================================================================





_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project