From: bc@freeuk.com   
      
   On 27/10/2025 13:45, Janis Papanagnou wrote:   
   > On 27.10.2025 13:58, bart wrote:   
   >> On 27/10/2025 12:50, bart wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>      Lua 5.4         0.65   
   >>   
   >>> Here's an example not related to my stuff:   
   >>>   
   >>>     c:\cx>tim tcc lua.c   
   >>>     Time: 0.120   
   >>>   
   >>> This builds the Lua intepreter in 1/8th of a second. Now, Tiny C   
   >>> generally produces indifferent code (ie. slow). Still, I get this   
   >>> result from my benchmark:   
   >>>   
   >>>      Lua 5.4         0.65        (lua.exe built using Tiny C)   
   >>>   
   >>> It's still at least FIVE TIMES FASTER than A68G!   
   >>   
   >> Oops! I forgot to update the timing after copying that line. The proper   
   >> figure should be:   
   >>   
   >>       Lua 5.4         1.5  seconds   
   >>   
   >   
   > And what have you gained or lost in practice by this 0.85 seconds   
   > delta?   
      
   > (Clearly, you're wasting your time on marginalities! And thereby   
   > completely missing or ignoring the more important factors.)   
      
   You're subtracting 0.65 from 1.5 instead of dividing it? That's unusual,   
   but OK, let's go with that!   
      
   0.65 seconds represents the result of using gcc-O2, and 1.5 from using tcc.   
      
   So you're saying there's little significant difference between them   
   regarding the performance of the generated code.   
      
   That's good to know.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)