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: 103376,325a055bed62c230
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: reason67@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: Apex vs GNAT on solaris
Date: 1999/12/08
Message-ID: <82lcr0$tsg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 557885601
References: <82hiuj$74o$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <82hnll$ahu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <82hokf$b9l$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <82ktik$j4c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 206.133.238.158
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Dec 08 10:44:48 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDreason67
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12 i686)
Date: 1999-12-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <82ktik$j4c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:

> It is completely meaningless to measure GNAT at -O0. The basic
> code generation technique used is designed to generate extremely
> inefficient code at this level, in a manner which is often hard
> to duplicate with a hand written code generator :-)
>
> From time to time we have discussed making the default -O2
> -gnatn, *precisely* so that naive benchmarks run with default
> options look better :-)
>
> Seriously, you have to decide what you are doing here. If
> you are measuring performance, then you need to make sure
> you are selecting comparable levels of optimization.
>
> If all you want to do is to find out the default options used
> for optimization, then it is more efficient to simply read the
> manuals to find this out, than to run meaningless comparisons
> of times.

BTW: Both compilers were set at no optimization.
---
Jeffrey S. Blatt


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.