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: 103376,539c04254abf1b37
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-28 05:35:42 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail
From: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: compiler benchmark comparisons
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:35:41 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: GMUGHDU
Message-ID: <a5lbnd$jsn$6@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
References: <3C74E519.3F5349C4@baesystems.com>   <a5djrr$m65$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <a5ghiq$9281@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <qFRe8.1032$jt4.495646881@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
 <u3czoxbjm.fsf@telus.net>
 <VuSe8.61199$K14.517462149@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
 <uzo1vx3w2.fsf@telus.net>
 <JmVe8.61213$nL7.532654192@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
 <a5hp7k$8q61@news.cis.okstate.edu> <3C7D37FD.F67F7067@despammed.com>
 <17247c3d.0202271553.68aaf78d@posting.google.com>
 <338040f8.0202271819.373f733a@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de
X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1014903341 20375 134.91.4.34 (28 Feb 2002
 13:35:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:35:41 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00
 (9000/800))
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20560
Date: 2002-02-28T13:35:41+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dan Andreatta <andreatta@mail.chem.sc.edu> wrote:

I'm not sure whether I understand this comment.
Is it about runtime performance of generated code
using some specific library functions? I thought this was
about the time it takes to compile a program?

(Incidentally, a similar test revealed that GNAT produced
x86 fpt code is surprinsingly fast, when tested against similar
attempts in C using the same backend. )



:  ada.text_io.put_line( Integer'Image(i) );

:  cout << i << endl;