Comparing r36130 and r36247 on Sunspider shows that the nsieve test has regressed by 1.15x (though overall, I see a 1.47x gain, presumably due to the squirrelfish-extreme branch merge, which is fabulous!). Complete Sunspider results pasted below: TEST COMPARISON FROM TO DETAILS ============================================================================= ** TOTAL **: 1.47x as fast 1498.0ms +/- 0.3% 1022.2ms +/- 0.5% significant ============================================================================= 3d: 1.36x as fast 216.4ms +/- 3.5% 159.2ms +/- 5.8% significant cube: 1.51x as fast 75.8ms +/- 11.2% 50.2ms +/- 15.0% significant morph: 1.36x as fast 76.2ms +/- 1.8% 56.2ms +/- 1.0% significant raytrace: 1.22x as fast 64.4ms +/- 1.1% 52.8ms +/- 5.4% significant access: 1.57x as fast 197.6ms +/- 1.7% 125.8ms +/- 2.9% significant binary-trees: 1.39x as fast 40.0ms +/- 3.8% 28.8ms +/- 4.7% significant fannkuch: 2.49x as fast 44.8ms +/- 1.2% 18.0ms +/- 0.0% significant nbody: 1.64x as fast 94.2ms +/- 1.7% 57.6ms +/- 1.9% significant nsieve: *1.15x as slow* 18.6ms +/- 3.7% 21.4ms +/- 13.4% significant bitops: 1.95x as fast 117.8ms +/- 1.9% 60.4ms +/- 2.3% significant 3bit-bits-in-byte: 2.27x as fast 20.4ms +/- 3.3% 9.0ms +/- 0.0% significant bits-in-byte: 1.96x as fast 22.4ms +/- 3.0% 11.4ms +/- 6.0% significant bitwise-and: 1.44x as fast 34.0ms +/- 2.6% 23.6ms +/- 2.9% significant nsieve-bits: 2.50x as fast 41.0ms +/- 2.1% 16.4ms +/- 4.2% significant controlflow: 1.13x as fast 15.8ms +/- 3.5% 14.0ms +/- 0.0% significant recursive: 1.13x as fast 15.8ms +/- 3.5% 14.0ms +/- 0.0% significant crypto: 1.51x as fast 82.8ms +/- 0.7% 55.0ms +/- 1.6% significant aes: 1.82x as fast 25.8ms +/- 2.2% 14.2ms +/- 3.9% significant md5: 1.39x as fast 28.6ms +/- 2.4% 20.6ms +/- 3.3% significant sha1: 1.41x as fast 28.4ms +/- 2.4% 20.2ms +/- 2.8% significant date: 1.08x as fast 148.6ms +/- 1.5% 138.2ms +/- 0.8% significant format-tofte: 1.02x as fast 94.0ms +/- 1.3% 92.6ms +/- 0.7% significant format-xparb: 1.20x as fast 54.6ms +/- 3.5% 45.6ms +/- 1.5% significant math: 1.42x as fast 179.0ms +/- 2.6% 126.2ms +/- 1.3% significant cordic: 1.52x as fast 55.2ms +/- 3.7% 36.4ms +/- 1.9% significant partial-sums: 1.38x as fast 90.4ms +/- 2.1% 65.6ms +/- 1.7% significant spectral-norm: 1.38x as fast 33.4ms +/- 3.3% 24.2ms +/- 2.3% significant regexp: 4.92x as fast 185.8ms +/- 0.7% 37.8ms +/- 1.5% significant dna: 4.92x as fast 185.8ms +/- 0.7% 37.8ms +/- 1.5% significant string: 1.16x as fast 354.2ms +/- 1.0% 305.6ms +/- 1.5% significant base64: 1.27x as fast 29.0ms +/- 0.0% 22.8ms +/- 2.4% significant fasta: 1.07x as fast 63.8ms +/- 1.6% 59.6ms +/- 1.1% significant tagcloud: 1.12x as fast 102.8ms +/- 0.5% 91.8ms +/- 1.1% significant unpack-code: 1.20x as fast 93.6ms +/- 2.0% 78.2ms +/- 2.8% significant validate-input: 1.22x as fast 65.0ms +/- 1.9% 53.2ms +/- 3.5% significant
Tested on a MacPro with 2 x 2.66GHz dual core intel xeons, with 2GB RAM on 10.5.4
I did not see a regression on nsieve comparing before to after, but obviously we should double check.
Some regressions show on some machines but not others. I expect this tracked something useful at the time, but enough has changed 74000 revisions (!) that I think it's safe to say we're no longer tracking this as a regression! Thanks for the bug report. Not sure what the right bug resolution is for far-too-much-water-has-passed-under-the-bridge-to-do-anything-about-this, I'm guessing WONTFIX is the closest.