From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <14ec7b180804101433p6a8cb975n850717e94af991d7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:33:31 -0600
From: "andrey mirtchovski" <mirtchovski@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <d6c1a5786910707026acc060f9442cb1@csplan9.rit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <14ec7b180804101405q5f810c3bw2856b3af67ef2bd4@mail.gmail.com>
	<d6c1a5786910707026acc060f9442cb1@csplan9.rit.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] FTQ benchmark available
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8c82f5d8-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

the only major difference would be between the respective
"getticks()" and "cycles()" implementations, i think.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:28 PM,  <john@csplan9.rit.edu> wrote:
>
> >>  i wonder if they'll give the same results!
>  >
>  > yes, the results are very similar (it's not an exact number). top here
>  > is the original ftq, bottom is John's port:
>  >
>  > http://mirtchovski.com/screenshots/ftq.jpg
>  >
>  > btw, John, please add a "clean" option to the mkfile; also,
>  > exits("success") is wrong.
>
>  Ok, fixed that stuff and ran some tests of my own.
>  My ftq: http://csplan9.rit.edu/users/john/my-ftq.png
>  Original ftq: http://csplan9.rit.edu/users/john/other-ftq.png
>
>  The FFTs look very different; I wonder which one is more correct?
>  I ran these tests one after the other on our CPU/auth/file server,
>  which had only one user (me) logged in over drawterm.
>
>  John
>
>
>