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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8c8550b9f2cf7d40
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-09 10:46:23 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is ther any sense in *= and matrices?
Date: 9 Jun 2003 10:46:21 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0306090946.26279267@posting.google.com>
References: <slrnbdu7q9.i9.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <bbnobo$bhcn7$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de>
 <slrnbdupg6.88r.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <bebbba07.0306071138.6bf9784f@posting.google.com>
 <bbumef$fnq@library2.airnews.net>
 <bebbba07.0306081051.5f3ac24b@posting.google.com>
 <pan.2003.06.08.22.56.37.297066@mail.utexas.edu>
 <bebbba07.0306082027.2c50eb6b@posting.google.com>
 <pan.2003.06.09.14.53.15.912223@mail.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.102.146.44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1055180782 22592 127.0.0.1 (9 Jun 2003 17:46:22
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Jun 2003 17:46:22 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38867
Date: 2003-06-09T17:46:22+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.06.09.14.53.15.912223@mail.utexas.edu>...
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 21:27:13 -0700, Russ wrote:
> 
> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > news:<pan.2003.06.08.22.56.37.297066@mail.utexas.edu>...
> >> On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 11:51:31 -0700, Russ wrote:
> >> 
> >> > "John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:<bbumef$fnq@library2.airnews.net>...
>  
> >> >> With all due respect, ladies and gentlemen, it has been known for a
> >> >> very long time that the difference in "efficiency" between A := A +
> >> >> B and A += B is lost in the noise floor compared to the improvements
> >> >> that can be gotten by improving the algorithms involved.
> >> > 
> >> > Oh, really? I just did a test in C++ with 3x3 matrices. I added them
> >> > together 10,000,000 times using "+", then "+=". The "+=" version took
> >> > about 19 seconds, and the "+" version took about 55 seconds. That's
> >> > just shy of a factor of 3, folks. If that's your "noise floor," I
> >> > can't help wonder what kind of "algorithms" you are dealing with!
> >> 
> >> I'm just curious why the compiler didn't generate the same code for
> >> both versions.
> > 
> > The compiler didn't generate the code. I did.
> 
> No, I'm talking about the compiler's machine-code output.  You wrote in
> C++, right?

Yes, I wrote it in C++. I would not have expected the compiler to
generate the same code for both versions. I did not use any
optimization flag, by the way, but even if I had, I still would not
have expected the same executable. If you think it should, your beef
is with the gcc folks.