Nathaniel Gray wrote:
> On 1/17/07, Edgar Friendly <thelema314@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> well, running only 40,000 iterations is way too low because timing
>> errors are going to get in the way of an accurate answer.
> 
> I forgot to mention that I also tried 400,000 and 4,000,000.  400K
> produced similar results to 40K, while 4M produced some strange
> results that didn't make sense.
> ...
> These results are clearly garbage, since the rate of function calls is
> negative.  Or perhaps there's some time-travel going on...

Or maybe there is a slight issue with overflow of whatever numeric
representation is being used (I haven't examined the benchmarking
package in any detail)?

Robert Roessler
roessler@rftp.com
http://www.rftp.com