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: 2002-03-01 15:17:57 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: 1 Mar 2002 15:17:56 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <338040f8.0203011517.5a1ebdeb@posting.google.com>
References: <3C74E519.3F5349C4@baesystems.com>
 <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>
 <338040f8.0202281012.31593a2@posting.google.com>
 <5ee5b646.0202282107.6f3dd89a@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.252.151.109
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1015024677 26761 127.0.0.1 (1 Mar 2002 23:17:57
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Mar 2002 23:17:57 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20674
Date: 2002-03-01T23:17:57+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> examples like this in detail, we discover that what
> people think are "identical" programs are in fact totally different

Er... you are right. (At this time Google hasn't reported any reply). 
I did some more experiments, and the bottleneck for the compiler was
in the genration of the code for Integer'Image(). I modified the loop,
and now it look more like the C version, relying on the I/O library
(using Ada.Integer_Text_IO).
Amazingly, now it compiles in about 2 seconds. Summarizing, these are
the data (below are the fragments of the codes used):

                      GNU/C      GNU/Ada (1)      GNU/Ada (2)    
GNU/Ada (3)
Source size (kB)       45           82              103             
97
Object size (kB)       63          503              503            
109

time to compile (s)   1.4         11.0              8.0            
2.2

compiled with gcc -c file.adb (no switches)

In conclusion... draw your own conclusion. 

Memo for me: next time don't spare resources, use at lest 2 neurons
:-)

The codes for the loops (repeated 1000 times) were:

GNU/C
for (i=0; i<100; ++i)
  printf("%d\n",i);

GNU/Ada (1)
for i in 1..100 loop
  ada.text_io.put_line( Integer'Image(i) );
end loop;

GNU/Ada (2)
i := 0;
while i<100 loop
  ada.text_io.put_line( Integer'Image(i) );
end loop;

GNU/Ada (3)
for i in 1..100 loop
  ada.integer_text_io.put( i );
  ada.text_io.new_line;
end loop;