Re: GNUstep Makes Fast Scientific Code, Faster Than Cocoa.

[Daniel J Farrell]

Hi Helge and Gregory,

I use (spend about 12 hours compiling GCC) and compiled GNUstep with  
that, so I'm guessing it's linking to GNU.

> By comparing the output of the Cocoa with GNUstep binary you should  
> also be able to tell why GNUstep performs better in your specific  
> case.

This would be interesting, I'll have a look.

> It would be really nice to do some concrete tests to get some real  
> numbers on this.

Yeah, what do you propose? Making sure that nothing is running in  
MacOS's background that could make the number different, do mulitiple  
runs... that kind of thing? Or are you thinking of 'bench-marking  
software'?

It is very easy for me to make the calculations longer (several  
mins.) when I get time I will do a longer run to see if Cocoa can  
catch up.

Dan.



On 3 Oct 2006, at 19:24, Helge Hess wrote:

> On Oct 3, 2006, at 18:17, Daniel J Farrell wrote:
> > Now, not a true test by any means just a tentative suggestion from  
> > a large command line app. The app is basically a scientific number  
> > cruncher. I have run the same code, on the same computer, one  
> > compiled in xcode linking to Cocoa Foundation and the other  
> > compiled using gcc make, make install, openapp etc. linked to  
> > GNUstep Base. The GNUstep version is 50% faster (47.8% increase to  
> > be more precise).
>
> Does GNUstep-base work with the Apple runtime or do you use the GNU  
> Objective-C runtime?
>
> If you want to further optimize the issue you should have a look in  
> Shark. By comparing the output of the Cocoa with GNUstep binary you  
> should also be able to tell why GNUstep performs better in your  
> specific case.
>
> Thanks,
>   Helge
> --
> Helge Hess
> http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnustep-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev