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-Thread: 103376,7767a311e01e1cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:22:26 +0200
From: Gautier <gautier@fakeaddress.nil>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT compiler switches and optimization
References: <1161341264.471057.252750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <9Qb_g.111857$aJ.65708@attbi_s21> <434o04-7g7.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <4539ce34$1_2@news.bluewin.ch> <nrup04-5hj.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <453A532F.2070709@obry.net> <9kfq04-sgm.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
 <sj3r04-rlv.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com> <OeF_g.1031657$084.91539@attbi_s22>
 <453b649e_4@news.bluewin.ch> <4uQ_g.1032209$084.294126@attbi_s22>
In-Reply-To: <4uQ_g.1032209$084.294126@attbi_s22>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.78.153.233
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.78.153.233
Message-ID: <453be103$1_3@news.bluewin.ch>
X-Trace: news.bluewin.ch 1161552131 83.78.153.233 (22 Oct 2006 23:22:11 +0200)
Organization: Bluewin AG
Complaints-To: abuse@bluewin.ch
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!164.128.36.58!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.bluewin.ch!not-for-mail
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7145
Date: 2006-10-22T23:22:26+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey R. Carter:

>> But still, it won't spare the time lost to fill the C matrix with zeros.
> 
> I didn't include that in the timing.

But you have to! Otherwise you are cheating. The zeroing is a part of your 
changed algorithm; without zeroing the result is wrong.

>> If you want to do a benchmark with Fortran, it's really not a good 
>> idea to begin with "pessimizing" the Ada code.
> 
> I'm more interested in seeing what makes a difference in the Ada. In 
> this case, the high-level features that let you write less code.

It is less code... "on the paper". In fact, it is more work, or, at best, if 
the code optimizer is really smart enough to combine the ":= (others => 
(others => 0.0) );" with the loops, it is the same work. Maybe that's the 
problem with high-level features: one can zero a matrix in so few characters 
that it seems to be done instantly ;-).

Cheers
Gautier