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: 103376,213fbc70eb225c16
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran)
Subject: Re: 'others' - inefficient esp. DEC Ada? [1/1]
Date: 1997/10/13
Message-ID: <344168c5.21239761@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 279931893
References: <+3g7rFB7dIQ0EwNI@RK-COMP.DEMON.CO.UK>
Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-10-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Testing your sample with two Ada 95 compilers on a Pentium 60, one of
them takes roughly twice as long for the "others" as for the loop and
the other compiler takes the same time either way (and looking at the
generated code, it's pretty nearly the same loop in both cases).  
  Why does copying 160*354 =56,640 bytes need a 3MB task stack?
  On my P60 a single copy takes a couple of milliseconds.  If your
program performs such large copies so often that the time matters,
perhaps this should be viewed as  a golden opportunity to recode such
foolishness.
  It certainly would be nice if each compiler came with a crib sheet
showing what it does especially well or poorly, instead of each
programmer having to discover for himself (usually painfully).  Does
the standard Ada benchmark suite (whose name escapes me at the moment)
include an others/loop timing test?