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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,539c04254abf1b37
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-28 10:12:45 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: andreatta@mail.chem.sc.edu (Dan Andreatta)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: compiler benchmark comparisons
Date: 28 Feb 2002 10:12:44 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <338040f8.0202281012.31593a2@posting.google.com>
References: <3C74E519.3F5349C4@baesystems.com>
 <qFRe8.1032$jt4.495646881@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
 <u3czoxbjm.fsf@telus.net>
 <VuSe8.61199$K14.517462149@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
 <uzo1vx3w2.fsf@telus.net>
 <JmVe8.61213$nL7.532654192@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
 <a5hp7k$8q61@news.cis.okstate.edu> <3C7D37FD.F67F7067@despammed.com>
 <17247c3d.0202271553.68aaf78d@posting.google.com>
 <338040f8.0202271819.373f733a@posting.google.com>
 <a5lbnd$jsn$6@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.252.151.109
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1014919965 14244 127.0.0.1 (28 Feb 2002 18:12:45
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Feb 2002 18:12:45 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20588
Date: 2002-02-28T18:12:45+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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