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: f4337,97c1afaa2414b3e2
X-Google-Attributes: gidf4337,public
X-Google-Thread: fecf8,f7d969d93769b1bb
X-Google-Attributes: gidfecf8,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f7d969d93769b1bb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 11307a,f7d969d93769b1bb
X-Google-Attributes: gid11307a,public
From: Michael Erdmann <boavista@berlin.snafu.de>
Subject: Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)
Date: 1997/07/05
Message-ID: <33BE7717.1213@berlin.snafu.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 254810283
References: <5ovqj1$4ul$1@unlisys.unlisys.net>
 <5p06jo$c1r$2@elektron.et.tudelft.nl> <5p38a7$2df$2@unlisys.unlisys.net>
 <5p93ov$9ro@news.mr.net> <5p9tpm$e90$1@unlisys.unlisys.net>
 <5pbea3$a0v@corn.cso.niu.edu> <dewar.867842157@merv>
Organization: Unlimited Surprise Systems, Berlin
Reply-To: boavista@berlin.snafu.de
Newsgroups: 
 comp.os.os2.setup.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer.oop,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Robert said
> 
> <<I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency
> as Linux's.  Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have
> (not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on
> Linux?
> >>
> 
> One clarification here. The compilers running on OS/2 and Linux are
> virtually identical code. So any differences you see in performance are
> not attributable to the compiler itself, but to OS and hardware
> considerations. As I noted in my previous post, my guess is that, if
> you are running on identical hardware, the most likely difference comes
> from the small HPFS cache size in OS/2.
I doubt this, because the cache of my Linux installtion is about 2 MB.
Earlier in the discussion some body mentioned the fact, that the emx
dll are ported from unix to OS/2 in a inefficient way. Could this
the probem ?