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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,38fc011071df5a27 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-04 13:05:48 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!skynet.be!skynet.be!213.51.129.3.MISMATCH!newshub1.home.nl!home.nl!amsnews01.chello.com!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!internal-news-hub.cableinet.net!news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418 Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X From: Bill Findlay Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Message-ID: References: <7vu1b640gf.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no> <7vllwh53ei.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:04:41 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.195.75.181 X-Complaints-To: abuse@blueyonder.co.uk X-Trace: news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk 1054757147 80.195.75.181 (Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:05:47 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:05:47 GMT Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38640 Date: 2003-06-04T21:04:41+01:00 List-Id: On 4/6/03 15:21, in article 7vllwh53ei.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no, "Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen" wrote: > Bill Findlay writes: > >> On 4/6/03 11:10, in article 7vu1b640gf.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no, >> "Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen" wrote: >> >>> I think the difference between C++ and Ada is the compiler. I run both >>> through gcc, and got identical results. >> >> They are far from identical, AFAICS. >> You show the Ada code as being 10 times faster, at 0.200s user-mode CPU time >> for C++ matrix_c, 0.030s for Ada matrix_fun, and 0.010s for matrix_proc : >> > > Well, yes, but the clock time is the same. It's an otherwise unloaded > system, and I get repeatable results, so I suspect there's something > funny going on with the user time measurements. Besides, a user time > of 0.01 seconds would indicate 10**10 additions per second, and I > don't believe my computer is quite as fast as that. Even the 0.2s real time indicates a rate of order 10**9 per second. Is your computer really that fast, or could the Ada optimizer have turned most of the additions into zero-time operations? 8-) -- Bill-Findlay chez blue-yonder.co.uk ("-" => "")