"M.-A. Lemburg" wrote:
what results do you get on Windows ?
Win2k, dual 800, relatively quiet! Python 2.0 F:\src\Python-2.0\PCbuild>python ..\lib\test\pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 10000 passes = 0.847605 This machine benchmarks at 11798 pystones/second F:\src\Python-2.0\PCbuild>python ..\lib\test\pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 10000 passes = 0.845104 This machine benchmarks at 11832.9 pystones/second F:\src\Python-2.0\PCbuild>python ..\lib\test\pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 10000 passes = 0.846069 This machine benchmarks at 11819.4 pystones/second F:\src\Python-2.0\PCbuild>python ..\lib\test\pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 10000 passes = 0.849447 This machine benchmarks at 11772.4 pystones/second Python from CVS today: F:\src\python-cvs\PCbuild>python ..\lib\test\pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 10000 passes = 0.885801 This machine benchmarks at 11289.2 pystones/second F:\src\python-cvs\PCbuild>python ..\lib\test\pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 10000 passes = 0.889048 This machine benchmarks at 11248 pystones/second F:\src\python-cvs\PCbuild>python ..\lib\test\pystone.py Pystone(1.1) time for 10000 passes = 0.892422 This machine benchmarks at 11205.5 pystones/second Although I deleted Tim's earlier mail, from memory this is pretty similar in terms of performance lost. I'm afraid I have no idea what your benchmarks are or how to build them <wink>, but did check that the optimizer is set for "mazimize for speed" (/O2). Other compiler options gave significantly smaller results (no optimizations around 8500, and "optimize for space" (/O1) at around 10000). Other fiddling with the optimizer couldn't get better results than the existing settings. Mark.