From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: 108717,a7c8692cac750b5e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid115aec,gidf43e6,gid108717,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-11!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: CTips <ctips@bestweb.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng,comp.programming
Subject: Re: 10 rules for benchmarking (was Re: Teaching new tricks to an
 old dog (C++ -->Ada))
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:00:26 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <113394jjvppao64@corp.supernews.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
   <1110032222.447846.167060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org>
   <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk>
   <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org>   <1110052142.832650@athnrd02>
   <d0dkq6$781$1@titan.btinternet.com>
   <1110284070.410136.205090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
   <395uqaF5rhu2mU1@individual.net>   <112rs0bdr2aftdf@corp.supernews.com>
   <1inxxr988rxgg$.1w9dedak41k89.dlg@40tude.net>
   <112s1r0rf0o8nca@corp.supernews.com>   <d0l2gq$egt$1@titan.btinternet.com>
   <112sonip5v4dca6@corp.supernews.com>
   <E1vXd.352556$w62.20389@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
   <112t3de6fu04f38@corp.supernews.com>
   <1110396477.596174.285520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
   <112vb2t8eonuhed@corp.supernews.com>
 <1110422108.925127.54110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
 <11329cb96h2p19f@corp.supernews.com> <c92s0d.vgk.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
In-Reply-To: <c92s0d.vgk.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9134 comp.realtime:1277
 comp.software-eng:4843 comp.programming:17807
Date: 2005-03-11T09:00:26-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:

> CTips a �crit :
> 
>>
>> Since it appears that several people out here are making some very 
>> basic mistakes when they report benchmark numbers, I thought I'd write 
>> a small note on how to do benchmarking.
>>
> [lots of good stuff deleted]
> 
> You are absolutely right, but there is one thing that this benchmark 
> *proves*:
> 
> Blindly claiming that C is faster than Ada is not supported by hard 
> figures.
> 

Actually, it is.

In most cases, it is possible to get close to assembly performance out 
of C [one major case where it isn't is when you want to use 
labels-as-addresses]. In fact, it is _NOT_ possible to beat that number 
using any language. If there are any run-time checks added by the Ada 
compiler, then the performance will not be the assembly level 
performance. Consequently, either one must program so that no checks 
need to be added OR one must disable all run-time checking.

BTW - all the psuedo-benchmarking people have done on this thread so far 
has provided meaningless numbers - too small run-times, performance 
dominated by cache misses etc.