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,
	MSGID_RANDY 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: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com>
Subject: Re: Ada95 speed
Date: 1999/05/19
Message-ID: <7ht4pm$4m9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 478871603
References: <374182F2.B10AD449@Maths.UniNe.CH>
 <3741aa37.3892645@news.pacbell.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed May 19 01:40:06 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-05-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3741aa37.3892645@news.pacbell.net>,
  tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran) wrote:
> >>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.


Well written code that involves heavy loops, e.g. over arrays,
often has minimal costs imposed by runtime checks.


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---