Re: The Computer Language Shootout Benchmarks

[igouy@yahoo.com]

Craig Carey wrote:
> On Thu, 04 May 2006 14:01:24 +1200, Craig Carey wrote to comp.lang.ada:
> >On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:14:19 +0200, Gautier wrote:
> >>Martin Krischik [wrote]
> ...
> >   "How many times faster or smaller are the Ada 95 GNAT programs than
> >          the corresponding C gcc programs?
> >
> >   "GNAT x times better
> >   - gcc x times better"
> >
> ...
> > That gives a narrow   to print out backtraces...
> .                     ^ window
>
>
> I considered that I may have made a mistake in my last message, by
> not considering that the figures in the table were found in this
> way:
>
>   Benchmark timing results for FSF GNAT and GCC C of unknown version,
>    were T1 and T2.
>
>   Compute   F = T1 / T2.
>   The results displayed is:   (F  -  (1 / F))

When F < 1 the result displayed is -1/F

Someone looking at GNAT vs C GCC will see the same numbers as someone
looking at  C GCC vs GNAT, but in gray with a different sign.

>
> Here is the page after the undefined data-massaging formula is applied
> (the formula is not in the FAQ, meaning that debian programmers don't
> frequently inquire about the origin of figures finding every compiler
> except one to be not-best):
>
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/ada.php
>
> | Program & Logs . .Faster . .Smaller: Memory Use . .Smaller: Code Lines
> | binary-trees . . . . -1.8 . . . . . . -1.6 . . . . . . . . -1.2 . . .
>
> So GNAt is slower than version ?.?.? Gcc and got a -1.8.
>
> Using the F - 1/F finds that the figure ought be -1.17.
>
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=binarytrees&lang=gcc
>
> | binary-trees benchmark | C gcc  | binary-trees full data
> |  binary-trees C gcc program
> |  N . . . . .Full CPU Time s . . . . Memory Use KB . . . . Code Lines
> | 16 . . . . . . . . . . 4.12 . . . . . . . . 4,528 . . . . . . . . 80
> |   contributed by Kevin Carson
>
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=binarytrees&lang=gnat&id=0
>
> | binary-trees benchmark | Ada 95 GNAT  | binary-trees full data
> |  binary-trees Ada 95 GNAT program
> |  N . . . . .Full CPU Time s . . . . Memory Use KB . . . . Code Lines
> | 16 . . . . . . . . . . 7.21 . . . . . . . . 7,360 . . . . . . . . 99
> | -- Contributed by Jim Rogers
>
> Calculations:
>    Full CPU Time:
>       4.12 / 7.21 = 0.57143 ; 0.57143 - (1 / 0.57143) = -1.17856563
>    Memory Use:
>       4528 / 7360 = 0.61522 ; 0.61522 - (1 / 0.61522) = -1.01021
>    Code Lines:
>         80 / 99   = 0.80808 ; 0.80808 - (1 / 0.80808) = -0.42942124
>
>
> The GNAT "pragma Suppress" improves GNAT's timing results by enough to
> cause it to be used.
>
> It is not clear why "gcc" has two names at the alioth website: "C gcc",
> and "gcc". Ada is part of Gcc and use of svn can show that.
>
> Concluding, the competitor to Ada found that its competitor was
> boosted by +53%. (1.8/1.17 = 1.53846154). Though almost certainly an
> attack on Ada, there was simply no admission of that, just a straight
> face presentation of the bare facts...
>
>
>
>
> Craig Carey
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >So most of the numbers are nearly all negative.
> >
> >Thus it is probable that the creator of the website wishes to present
> >himself/herself as observing that GNAT executables
> >   finish running before they start.
> >
> >That gives a narrow to print out backtraces...
> >
> >For a clarification, the "ada.php" webpage shows an image that
> >contains images of horizontal bars.
> >
> >Of them I note:
> >
> >  * none are labelled. However the first word on the webpage is
> >   "Debian" (rather than, eg., "Linux").
> >
> >  * Something is labelled in the plot: and that is the horizontal
> >   axis.  It has two labels that are not clarified:
> >
> >      (a) "GNAT better" (on the right)
> >      (b) "gcc better" (on the left).
> >
> >So what is the "-" symbol mean, in the text "- gcc times better".
> >
> >Special reasoning skills are possibly needed to prevent modifying
> >scripts so that --sysroot is added to ld linker operations and then
> >the GNAT compiler is actually built under the FreeBSD emulator.
> >FreeBSD seems to be getting faster, and maybe the buildword is
> >less likely to crash too.
> >
> >Here is the competing Windows "shootout" webpage:
> >
> >   http://dada.perl.it/shootout/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>- 4 native solutions
> >>HTH
> >>_______________________________________________________________
> >>Gautier         -- http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/gdm/index.htm
> >
> >Craig Carey