Re: take this famous emacs benchmark test

[Lute Kamstra]

Dan Jacobson <jidanni@dman.ddts.net> writes:

> Fellas, take my nifto emacs benchmark test, which I pegged together
> just moments ago without proper computer training...
>
>     j=;for i in '' -nw -q --no-site-file;do j=$i\ $j;c="time emacs $j -f
>     kill-emacs";echo -e \\n\$ $c;$c;done
>
> ...to see just how much slower your emacs plods along due to your
> and your "Linux distribution" crud-encrusting it. Just cut and paste it
> into your shell to-day! Results here at Nerdsburg Laboratories:
>
> $ time emacs -f kill-emacs
> 0.97user 0.13system 0:01.30elapsed 84%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (1632major+952minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> $ time emacs -nw -f kill-emacs
> 0.80user 0.12system 0:00.93elapsed 98%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (1305major+823minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> $ time emacs -q -nw -f kill-emacs
> 0.44user 0.07system 0:00.53elapsed 96%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (1296major+675minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> $ time emacs --no-site-file -q -nw -f kill-emacs
> 0.07user 0.03system 0:00.09elapsed 105%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (1056major+311minor)pagefaults 0swaps

I'm curious.  What happens when you do these four tests in reverse order?

[...]

Lute.

-- 
(spook) => "Skipjack 9705 Samford Road propaganda"
(insert-file-contents "~/.signature") => (error "`~/.signature' too rude")