From: andreatta@mail.chem.sc.edu (Dan Andreatta)
Subject: Re: compiler benchmark comparisons
Date: 28 Feb 2002 10:12:44 -0800
Date: 2002-02-28T18:12:45+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <338040f8.0202281012.31593a2@posting.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: a5lbnd$jsn$6@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de
Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<a5lbnd$jsn$6@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
> Dan Andreatta <andreatta@mail.chem.sc.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure whether I understand this comment.
> Is it about runtime performance of generated code
> using some specific library functions? I thought this was
> about the time it takes to compile a program?
Compile time, indeed. Yesterday I was running late, and missed some
explanations. I took the idea from the other thread, where this issue
was introduced. There a guy tried with random gotos, but it is easier
and faster to build a program with repeated blocks.
The times reported are without switches. I tried also some combination
of options, such as -gnatp, but the time was almost identical. The
main change in timing was due to optimizations. In that case, with
-O2, the gap between Ada and the rest widens, yelding these times to
compile the same code:
GNAT 250 sec
g77 13
gcc 5
The run times were around 0.2 sec for gcc and 0.5 sec for GNAT
(dumping the output).
Dan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-28 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <3C74E519.3F5349C4@baesystems.com>
[not found] ` <20020221205157.05542.00000012@mb-cm.news.cs.com>
2002-02-22 12:19 ` naval systems David Gillon
2002-02-22 14:55 ` Marin David Condic
2002-02-23 5:54 ` David Starner
2002-02-25 15:05 ` Marin David Condic
2002-02-26 2:34 ` Larry Kilgallen
2002-02-26 17:44 ` David Starner
2002-02-26 19:49 ` Pat Rogers
2002-02-26 19:55 ` Ray Blaak
2002-02-26 20:46 ` Pat Rogers
2002-02-26 22:41 ` Ray Blaak
2002-02-27 0:02 ` Pat Rogers
2002-02-27 5:01 ` David Starner
2002-02-27 9:38 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2002-02-27 19:48 ` compiler benchmark comparisons (was: naval systems) Wes Groleau
2002-02-27 21:51 ` Pat Rogers
2002-03-01 2:04 ` David Starner
2002-03-01 4:06 ` Pat Rogers
2002-02-27 23:53 ` Gary Barnes
2002-02-28 2:19 ` Dan Andreatta
2002-02-28 10:04 ` Jerry van Dijk
2002-02-28 13:35 ` compiler benchmark comparisons Georg Bauhaus
2002-02-28 18:12 ` Dan Andreatta [this message]
2002-03-01 5:07 ` Robert Dewar
2002-03-01 16:43 ` Dan Andreatta
2002-03-01 23:17 ` Dan Andreatta
2002-03-01 23:40 ` tmoran
2002-02-28 14:18 ` compiler benchmark comparisons (was: naval systems) Wes Groleau
2002-02-28 14:31 ` Ted Dennison
2002-02-28 18:33 ` Dan Andreatta
2002-02-28 21:14 ` Wes Groleau
2002-02-28 14:01 ` Wes Groleau
2002-03-01 22:01 ` Randy Brukardt
2002-02-28 15:58 ` Larry Kilgallen
[not found] ` <338040f8.0202271819.373f733a@Organization: LJK Software <TgAW8WWqYgP5@eisner.encompasserve.org>
2002-03-01 19:29 ` Robert Dewar
2002-03-02 11:12 ` Pascal Obry
2002-03-02 19:49 ` Richard Riehle
[not found] ` <5ee5b646.0203011129.1bdbac56@po <ug03ji5ow.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
2002-03-02 18:20 ` Simon Wright
2002-02-27 2:28 ` naval systems David Starner
2002-02-27 21:44 ` Pat Rogers
2002-03-01 2:59 ` David Starner
2002-03-01 15:33 ` Pat Rogers
2002-03-01 17:22 ` Jeffrey Carter
2002-03-03 5:21 ` David Starner
2002-02-26 22:40 ` Pascal Obry
2002-02-27 0:42 ` David Starner
2002-02-23 19:18 ` John R. Strohm
2002-02-23 18:36 ` martin.m.dowie
2002-02-25 15:10 ` Marin David Condic
2002-02-28 16:33 ` tony gair
2002-02-28 17:33 ` David Gillon
2002-02-28 21:18 ` Wes Groleau
2002-03-01 17:31 ` Boeing 777 (WAS: naval systems) Simon Pilgrim
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox