Re: [ANNOUNCE] contest benchmark v0.60

[Cliff White]

> On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 03:39:34PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > more I tried to add to it. Also there were subtle things happening in the 
> > BASH version that made for much more variation in results than this version. 
> 
> I agree, it had begun to outgrow it's bash roots (e.g. i think it was
> the ratio section with variables named a b c d e which drove me nuts
> when I couldn't figure out which one was giving me a zero value).
> 
> > Possibly but clearly c has no major limitations once the hard part (the 
> > wrapper for the other applications) has been done. 
> 
> I would disagree.  For example, playing tricks with strings,
> pipes/redirects and files in C is a complete pain, compared with
> perl/python.  Most of the things I changed with the orignal bash
> version were in this subset, and it allowed me to customise it for
> what we were doing quickly and easily. 
> 

Good point. 
One other note, the C version should have a much smaller memory footprint then
Perl or Python - less likely to perturb test results. 
Speaking for myself, i think this is such a small pile of code, it might be fun
to have a parallel Perl/Python version. (it would be a good excuse for me to 
learn some Python)
My personal choice would be C to generate the data and Perl to pretty-print 
it.

 I need to get into the code more for STP integration, so i'll have more 
opinons
soon :)
cliffw

> -i
> [e-mail]
> http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>