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: 103376,4a36b7df69d1af90
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: hugin777@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: Announcing JGNAT public version 1.0p
Date: 2000/04/08
Message-ID: <8cmiur$j32$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 608215134
References: <8bqd8g$sbs$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8c2613$hce$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <sedi346n9138@corp.supernews.com> <8c7fh4$25g$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <sefra8s2eop75@corp.supernews.com> <8c92nl$nqn$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <seg4ssgaeop7@corp.supernews.com> <8cak93$dtl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <38EA152B.6D7A4481@earthlink.net>
 <1MNG4.630$n8.195854@news-east.usenetserver.com>
 <38ECB0CC.3B2941E2@earthlink.net> <8ckscp$nv7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <8ckthd$p99$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 212.242.3.7
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Apr 08 06:18:10 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDhugin777
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win95; U)
Date: 2000-04-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8ckthd$p99$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8ckscp$nv7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   hugin777@my-deja.com wrote:
> > On my machine (with gcc -O3) Java is 3 times faster !!  (Due
> > to Pentium optimizations, I guess)
>
> No, most likely because you did not use the right options
> for the GNAT run, there are many peformance considerations in
> doing a comparison like this.
>
> For instance, -O3 is usually a bad idea compared to -O2,
> but likely you should unroll loops, probably you should
> suppress checks too if you are comparing with Java which
> has no arithmetic runtime checking.

OK, I tried it with "-O2 -gnatp" - same result.

If someone out there has time to find the right way to compile this, or
find out where I made an error, please educate me.

> You may also be seeing artifacts in overhead, we often find
> that primitive benchmarks like this are badly flawed.

Yes, I admit that.

> Of course the main reason for programing in Ada rather than
> Java is not efficiency, but rather that Ada is a superior
> language to Java in many respects. I would base the choice
> primarily on language requirements, unless efficiency becomes
> known to be a significant issue.

Yes. My point was that the Java Virtual Machines are quite efficient by
now. I didn't intend to say that Java-the-language is better than
Ada-the-language - the only reason for not using Ada on the JVM is that
I haven't downloaded JGNAT yet !

Regards,
   Jens Jakob Jensen.


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