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: a07f3367d7,c19e8df8a75221d0
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:52:31 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Q: Line_IO
References: <4a9b045a$0$31875$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 	<7225bda9-8757-4c5c-bb44-b3be21a1e1f9@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
 	<4a9ba04a$0$32678$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <41445103-0faf-4cb3-be93-99cb1d3c0080@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <41445103-0faf-4cb3-be93-99cb1d3c0080@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4a9bffcf$0$32667$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Aug 2009 18:52:31 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3eef7e40.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=ZYMFFY=aH<`^Y=RbYBPl4`A9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRa^YC2XCjHcbi@3CKQ\5Q69a;9OJDO8_SKfNSZ1n^B98ijkNQ?MOTi\3c
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8075
Date: 2009-08-31T18:52:31+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Anh Vo schrieb:

> I am curious how close when compared to GNAT.IO.Put_Line and
> GNAT.IO.Get_Line. If it is close enough, I would say it is the best of
> both worlds, speed and portability.

For reading, I don't know how to compare GNAT.IO.Get_Line.
This Get_Line seems to ignore the end of input.
AFAICS, it is implemented using C's getchar(), non-macro-versions
IIUC. Never compares the result of imported get_char <- getchar()
against C's EOF.

GNAT.IO.Put_Line seem to be slow.
It, too, ends up calling C's putchar().
In fact, it appears to be running many times more slowly than
Text_IO.Put_Line.

A few statistical results, sampled on one GNU/Linux machine.

$ gnatmake -g -O2 -gnatwa -gnatn test_line_io.adb

$ ./test_line_io < {250MB text file} > {some output file}


With Line_IO.Print and

-  Line_IO.Getline: ~3 seconds.
-  Text_IO.Get_Line: ~7.5 seconds.

With Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line and

-  Line_IO.Getline: ~21 seconds
-  Text_IO.Get_Line: ~27 seconds