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,cf34599caf2fa938
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Theodore Dennison <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
Subject: Re: GNAT function calling overhead
Date: 1995/04/07
Message-ID: <3m3d14$e21@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100070337
references: <3m0nv1$pv2@nef.ens.fr>
content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
organization: IPL InterNetNews site
x-url: news:3m0nv1$pv2@nef.ens.fr
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 1.1b2 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c)
Date: 1995-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

sands@clipper.ens.fr (Duncan Sands) wrote:
>Essentially the question is: why so much function calling overhead
>in GNAT?
>
>In summary: 55 seconds with function calling overhead.
>            44 seconds without function calling overhead.
>PS: The corresponding C code takes about 6 seconds.  This surprises
>me too.


Did you try compiling gnat with the optimizations turned on?



T.E.D. (structured programming bigot)