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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d05dea3bcf369d02
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Gautier.DeMontmollin@maths.unine.ch (Gautier)
Subject: Re: GNAT vs Borland Speed Test
Date: 1997/01/20
Message-ID: <1997Jan20.143206.5577@news>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 211108736
references: <5bmnmh$kdn$1@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>
organization: University of Neuchatel, Switzerland
reply-to: Gautier.deMontmollin@Maths.UniNe.CH
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5bmnmh$kdn$1@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>, none-set <74031.316@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> There was a posting here lately making light of the runtime
> speed of Borland Pascal vs GNAT.  I did a little test of
> integer math and found that BP beats GNAT by about 4% in
> integer math (3N+1 problem using 32-bit ints) when GNAT
> is run without optimization.  GNAT wins by almost 30% when
> option -O2 is on.
> 
> Al
> 
For floating point, a little test with multiplications gave me
about 2 sec. for GNAT, 5 for TP 6.0, 8 for Alsys Ada.