The results of these benchmarks suggest that building this bc with optimization at -O3 with link-time optimization (-flto) will result in the best performance. However, using -march=native can result in WORSE performance.
Note: all benchmarks were run four times, and the fastest run is the one shown. Also, [bc] means whichever bc was being run, and the assumed working directory is the root directory of this repository. Also, this bc was at version 3.0.0 while GNU bc was at version 1.07.1, and all tests were conducted on an x86_64 machine running Gentoo Linux with clang 9.0.1 as the compiler.
These benchmarks were run with both bc's compiled with the typical -O2 optimizations and no link-time optimization.
The command used was:
tests/script.sh bc add.bc 1 0 1 1 [bc]
For GNU bc:
real 2.54 user 1.21 sys 1.32
For this bc:
real 0.88 user 0.85 sys 0.02
The command used was:
tests/script.sh bc subtract.bc 1 0 1 1 [bc]
For GNU bc:
real 2.51 user 1.05 sys 1.45
For this bc:
real 0.91 user 0.85 sys 0.05
The command used was:
tests/script.sh bc multiply.bc 1 0 1 1 [bc]
For GNU bc:
real 7.15 user 4.69 sys 2.46
For this bc:
real 2.20 user 2.10 sys 0.09
The command used was:
tests/script.sh bc divide.bc 1 0 1 1 [bc]
For GNU bc:
real 3.36 user 1.87 sys 1.48
For this bc:
real 1.61 user 1.57 sys 0.03
The command used was:
printf '1234567890^100000; halt\n' | time -p [bc] -q > /dev/null
For GNU bc:
real 11.30 user 11.30 sys 0.00
For this bc:
real 0.73 user 0.72 sys 0.00
This file was downloaded, saved at ../timeconst.bc and the following patch was applied:
--- ../timeconst.bc 2018-09-28 11:32:22.808669000 -0600
+++ ../timeconst.bc 2019-06-07 07:26:36.359913078 -0600
@@ -110,8 +110,10 @@
print "#endif /* KERNEL_TIMECONST_H */\n"
}
- halt
}
-hz = read();
-timeconst(hz)
+for (i = 0; i <= 50000; ++i) {
+ timeconst(i)
+}
+
+halt
The command used was:
time -p [bc] ../timeconst.bc > /dev/null
For GNU bc:
real 16.71 user 16.06 sys 0.65
For this bc:
real 13.16 user 13.15 sys 0.00
Because this bc is faster when doing math, it might be a better comparison to run a script that is not running any math. As such, I put the following into ../test.bc:
for (i = 0; i < 100000000; ++i) {
y = i
}
i
y
halt
The command used was:
time -p [bc] ../test.bc > /dev/null
For GNU bc:
real 16.60 user 16.59 sys 0.00
For this bc:
real 22.76 user 22.75 sys 0.00
I also put the following into ../test2.bc:
i = 0
while (i < 100000000) {
i += 1
}
i
halt
The command used was:
time -p [bc] ../test2.bc > /dev/null
For GNU bc:
real 17.32 user 17.30 sys 0.00
For this bc:
real 16.98 user 16.96 sys 0.01
It seems that the improvements to the interpreter helped a lot in certain cases.
Also, I have no idea why GNU bc did worse when it is technically doing less work.
2.7.0Note that, when running the benchmarks, the optimizations used are not the ones I recommended for version 2.7.0, which are -O3 -flto -march=native.
This bc separates its code into modules that, when optimized at link time, removes a lot of the inefficiency that comes from function overhead. This is most keenly felt with one function: bc_vec_item(), which should turn into just one instruction (on x86_64) when optimized at link time and inlined. There are other functions that matter as well.
I also recommended -march=native on the grounds that newer instructions would increase performance on math-heavy code. We will see if that assumption was correct. (Spoiler: NO.)
When compiling both bc's with the optimizations I recommended for this bc for version 2.7.0, the results are as follows.
The command used was:
tests/script.sh bc add.bc 1 0 1 1 [bc]
For GNU bc:
real 2.44 user 1.11 sys 1.32
For this bc:
real 0.59 user 0.54 sys 0.05
The command used was:
tests/script.sh bc subtract.bc 1 0 1 1 [bc]
For GNU bc:
real 2.42 user 1.02 sys 1.40
For this bc:
real 0.64 user 0.57 sys 0.06
The command used was:
tests/script.sh bc multiply.bc 1 0 1 1 [bc]
For GNU bc:
real 7.01 user 4.50 sys 2.50
For this bc:
real 1.59 user 1.53 sys 0.05
The command used was:
tests/script.sh bc divide.bc 1 0 1 1 [bc]
For GNU bc:
real 3.26 user 1.82 sys 1.44
For this bc:
real 1.24 user 1.20 sys 0.03
The command used was:
printf '1234567890^100000; halt\n' | time -p [bc] -q > /dev/null
For GNU bc:
real 11.08 user 11.07 sys 0.00
For this bc:
real 0.71 user 0.70 sys 0.00
The command for the ../timeconst.bc script was:
time -p [bc] ../timeconst.bc > /dev/null
For GNU bc:
real 15.62 user 15.08 sys 0.53
For this bc:
real 10.09 user 10.08 sys 0.01
The command for the next script, the for loop script, was:
time -p [bc] ../test.bc > /dev/null
For GNU bc:
real 14.76 user 14.75 sys 0.00
For this bc:
real 17.95 user 17.94 sys 0.00
The command for the next script, the while loop script, was:
time -p [bc] ../test2.bc > /dev/null
For GNU bc:
real 14.84 user 14.83 sys 0.00
For this bc:
real 13.53 user 13.52 sys 0.00
Just for kicks, let's see if -march=native is even useful.
The optimizations I used for both bc's were -O3 -flto.
The command used was:
tests/script.sh bc add.bc 1 0 1 1 [bc]
For GNU bc:
real 2.41 user 1.05 sys 1.35
For this bc:
real 0.58 user 0.52 sys 0.05
The command used was:
tests/script.sh bc subtract.bc 1 0 1 1 [bc]
For GNU bc:
real 2.39 user 1.10 sys 1.28
For this bc:
real 0.65 user 0.57 sys 0.07
The command used was:
tests/script.sh bc multiply.bc 1 0 1 1 [bc]
For GNU bc:
real 6.82 user 4.30 sys 2.51
For this bc:
real 1.57 user 1.49 sys 0.08
The command used was:
tests/script.sh bc divide.bc 1 0 1 1 [bc]
For GNU bc:
real 3.25 user 1.81 sys 1.43
For this bc:
real 1.27 user 1.23 sys 0.04
The command used was:
printf '1234567890^100000; halt\n' | time -p [bc] -q > /dev/null
For GNU bc:
real 10.50 user 10.49 sys 0.00
For this bc:
real 0.72 user 0.71 sys 0.00
The command for the ../timeconst.bc script was:
time -p [bc] ../timeconst.bc > /dev/null
For GNU bc:
real 15.50 user 14.81 sys 0.68
For this bc:
real 10.17 user 10.15 sys 0.01
The command for the next script, the for loop script, was:
time -p [bc] ../test.bc > /dev/null
For GNU bc:
real 14.99 user 14.99 sys 0.00
For this bc:
real 16.85 user 16.84 sys 0.00
The command for the next script, the while loop script, was:
time -p [bc] ../test2.bc > /dev/null
For GNU bc:
real 14.92 user 14.91 sys 0.00
For this bc:
real 12.75 user 12.75 sys 0.00
It turns out that -march=native can be a problem. As such, I have removed the recommendation to build with -march=native.
When I ran these benchmarks with my bc compiled under clang vs. gcc, it performed much better under clang. I recommend compiling this bc with clang.