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=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d05dea3bcf369d02,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: none-set <74031.316@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: GNAT vs Borland Speed Test
Date: 1997/01/17
Message-ID: <5bmnmh$kdn$1@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 210326560
organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


There was a posting here lately making light of the runtime
speed of Borland Pascal vs GNAT.  I did a little test of
integer math and found that BP beats GNAT by about 4% in
integer math (3N+1 problem using 32-bit ints) when GNAT
is run without optimization.  GNAT wins by almost 30% when
option -O2 is on.

Al