From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" Message-ID: <878z9ha5b4.fsf@becket.becket.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <71f9dbfbfc8fadc420ee2b20663fb731@plan9.bell-labs.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] GUI toolkit for Plan 9 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:10:36 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 55a0c77e-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 rob@plan9.bell-labs.com (rob pike) writes: > By the way, if someone out there has Linux and Plan 9 running on the > same hardware, I would be genuinely interested in seeing an good > comparison of run-time and code quality. Thanks. I didn't define > 'dramatically' in my last message because a) there were two different > machines involved and b) the header files involved were quite > different. (But it was _dramatic_, and the Plan 9 machine is much > slower.) I once did some instrumentation of GCC run times when -O was not being used, and a *vast* amount of time was being spent processing includes in the C preprocessor. (Hence my assertion that optimizing the rest of the system would do a lot more to speed up compilation than using a toy compiler would.) That was on an HP-300 running BSD; I don't know any such information for more modern computers.