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,bcdac28207102750
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Gautier <Gautier.deMontmollin@Maths.UniNe.CH>
Subject: Re: Ada95 speed
Date: 1999/05/18
Message-ID: <3741B203.4890880B@Maths.UniNe.CH>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 478793915
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <374182F2.B10AD449@Maths.UniNe.CH>
 <3741aa37.3892645@news.pacbell.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-05-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> >>Is Ada95 slow in order to be safe?

> >With run-time checks, yes; without them, no.
> >-gnatp suppresses all.

>   On Win95, I see a very modest difference between "-O3" and "-gnatp
> -O3" on this Mandelbrot code.

The main suppressed checks are for conversions, discrete range checks,
array bound checks etc.; there are no standard checks for floating
point operations (are there ?) - this could explain your observation.
But -O2 or -O3 could help... and even, in that case, the choice
of a good algorithm and the removal of the hidden Sqrt helps surely
even more...
 
-- 
Gautier