[bug-notifications] [ruby18 0004897]: ruby 18 on sparc poorly optimized

[Mantis Bug Tracker]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://www.opencsw.org/mantis/view.php?id=4897 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                phil
Assigned To:                bwalton
====================================================================== 
Project:                    ruby18
Issue ID:                   4897
Category:                   regular use
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   major
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     feedback
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2012-02-13 20:49 CET
Last Modified:              2012-02-14 02:55 CET
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    ruby 18 on sparc poorly optimized
Description: 
On the same sparc machine, on solaris 10, running the same test
(http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/ruby-19-quick-speed-test/)
takes 3 times as long as a locally compiled ruby.
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0009606) phil (reporter) - 2012-02-14 02:55
 https://www.opencsw.org/mantis/view.php?id=4897#c9606 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
The default csw rbconfig.rb is for gcc.
It turns out that CSWruby18_gcc IS installed. though I have no idea why.

I decided to test out on an older sparc cpu.
running solaris 9.

Umm.. wow.

csw: 13 sec
local: 2 sec.

cpu type UltraAX-i2

This is an executable specifically compiled on sol9 though.
ruby --version 
ruby 1.8.7 (2010-01-10 patchlevel 249) [sparc-solaris2.9]
again, no libruby.so.
But this one is just libm.so.1.  Not surprising, i think only sol10
triggers libm.so.2 ?
But also may have been compiled with sos11. cant be sure.

My prior results tests was compiled on sol10, running on 10.