A closer look at the performance of Google Chrome

Re:A closer look at the performance of Google Chrome by taf2 on Monday February 25, 2013 @05:00PM (#5282146)

Last I heard IE was closed source ... I'd love to know how he got his hands on the IE code base to make that measurement... All his posturing about - design decisions being a business need of google make me wonder whether this was a M$ sponsored article...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A closer look at the performance of Google Chrome by Someone on Monday February 25, 2013 @05:35PM (#5282341)

They say 'estimated'. A way to do that is to look at the disassembly of IE code, assuming an on average constant number of assembly instructions per C statement. I don't think that is a bad assumption, but it does ignore potential differences between compilers.

Also, IE source likely is available through Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative (http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx). After all, Microsoft has vehemently argumented that IE is inseparable from the OS. I think it would require some lenient interpretation of that license to use it for this purpose, though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A closer look at the performance of Google Chrome by yuhong on Monday February 25, 2013 @09:01PM (#5283385)

AFAIK, the compiler version used to compile any MS product can be figured out from the linker version stored in the PE header.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A closer look at the performance of Google Chrome by jamesaguilar on Monday February 25, 2013 @05:37PM (#5282356)

Well you could instrument the source code and measure the number of calls, and compare that to the rough number of non-call ops per function. Not a perfect metric but it's something. His claims do seem far fetched though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A closer look at the performance of Google Chrome by recoiledsnake on Monday February 25, 2013 @06:53PM (#5282753)

>M$

Please, this is not Slashdot or /r/linux.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/07/22

[ Parent | on HN ]