ruby 1.9.1p129 (2009-05-12 revision 23412) [i386-mswin32]

We might need to upgrade.

Tomas

-----Original Message-----
From: Luis Lavena [mailto:luislavena / gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 10:29 AM
To: ruby-core / ruby-lang.org
Subject: [ruby-core:30978] Re: ironruby vs ruby

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Tomas Matousek <Tomas.Matousek / microsoft.com> wrote:
> Note that Antonio's benchmark compares 64bit IronRuby build against 32bit.8.7 MRI and thus favoring MRI.
> Our 32bit build is doing better simply due to the fact that pointers are half in size.
>
> We have adapted versions of some of Antonio's microbenchmarks in our depohat I use for IronRuby perf analysis. The results I get on the current build are below.
> As you can see we are slower in some faster in others. We know the reasons and how to speed it up for most of them. We just haven't had time to do so yet. And keep in mind these are just microbenchmarks so they don't reallyeflect perf thruput of real apps. If you would like to see the exact source code let me know.
>
> C:\Temp>rbr -X:NoAdaptiveCompilation run.rb ./bm_app_factorial.rb
>  ¨Âõâ±®¹º ²®···¯²®··>  ¨ÂòïîÒõâùº ±®³´²¯±®³²­¾ ²®°¹´ø æáóôåò

What version of Ruby 1.9 are you comparing against? 1.9.1, 1.9.2, mswin or mingw builds?
--
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, butather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-ExupñÓy