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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7d2c8b4487ef2145 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jmatthews@nova.wright.edu (Dr. John B. Matthews) Subject: Re: Ada versus Java - Tasking Date: 1997/01/21 Message-ID: <1997Jan21.134251@nova.wright.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 211316569 distribution: world references: <01bc03ee$594dc520$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se> <32DFC320.41C67EA6@innocon.com> organization: Wright State University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-01-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , "David Taylor" writes: [Using Jeff Carter's simple yet compelling example with MachTen and gnat 3.07, Dave gets a shade under 5 seconds per run.] Using gnat 3.07 with the same options on a 120 MHz PowerPC 604, I got an average execution time of 4.05 seconds. On a 180 MHz PowerPC 604e, Jim Hopper reports an average execution time of 2.32 seconds. Both our results are less variable than Dave's, probably because we're using Tenon's CodeBuilder product. The latter doesn't include MachTen's inet stuff, so it's may have less overhead. "Since the processors are comparable, I suspect the most improvement in time is because of 3.07. I no longer have 3.05 installed, so I can't check the timing with it." The clock speeds are comparable, but the 604 and 604e are more on par with the P6. Like you I don't have 3.05 handy, but my other tasking code didn't improve at all with 3.07; there's more to it than that. "Anyway, not too shabby." Indeed! John ---------------------------------------------------------------- John B. Matthews, M.D. jmatthews@nova.wright.edu; john_matthews@ccmail.dayton.saic.com "Whom the gods would destroy, they first invite to program in C"