This is the mail archive of the sid@sourceware.org mailing list for the SID project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: SID Comparisons

From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>
To: hadipurnawan satria <hadipurnawan dot satria at gmail dot com>
Cc: SID public developers <sid at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:27:16 -0500
Subject: Re: SID Comparisons
References: <970bde210702012111n46c9836dx9b60a95a4c9d5fac@mail.gmail.com> <20070202164552.GF14417@redhat.com> <970bde210702021413y25c11557l28cd5ddcf739ea41@mail.gmail.com>

Hi -

> Okay, just a little bit more. Is there any hard statistic like for
> example i read somewhere in the milis archive someone mentioned
> about 1000MIPS performance or something?

Numbers like that depend on too many factors to answer simply.  sid is
highly configurable, and some options allow trading off between
performance, debuggability, simplicity.

> And maybe some opinion about what makes SID stands up against the
> others.

Sorry, that sort of comparison will be up to you.  A key part of
making such a paper interesting coming up with different axes along
which the tools may be compared.  An overall "winner" is very rare.

> I mean, in my report i have to somehow shows that SID is relatively
> better in comparison.

We'll of be glad if that comes out as your conclusion, but you
certainly shouldn't pre-judge.  I'm sure we'd be curious to read your
paper when it's finished, so please don't forget to send a link!

- FChE

References:
- SID Comparisons
  - From: hadipurnawan satria
- Re: SID Comparisons
  - From: Frank Ch. Eigler

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]