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
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,304c86061dc69dba
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,304c86061dc69dba
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,2746b4897cd9baa7
X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-13 09:06:51 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!elk.ncren.net!scrotar.nss.udel.edu!not-for-mail
From: Rich Townsend <rhdt@barREMOVEtol.udel.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Ada performance (was No call for Ada )
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:06:50 -0500
Organization: University of Delaware
Message-ID: <c0j07a$ptv$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu>
References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org>
 <m3isij11u4.fsf_-_@insalien.org>
 <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com>
 <2460735.u7KiuvdgQP@linux1.krischik.com>
 <54759e7e.0402081525.50c7adae@posting.google.com>
 <Xns9489AEC0F8702jimmaureenrogers@204.127.36.1>
 <54759e7e.0402091826.2847e0c@posting.google.com>
 <vjah20tahj48fftkpeghp29ugnojfdd4r4@4ax.com>
 <54759e7e.0402101819.95cec1d@posting.google.com>
 <Xns948BEEE63371Ajimmaureenrogers@204.127.36.1>
 <88dc613b.0402121520.bf939f8@posting.google.com>
 <402CE891.D04E88D7@mediasec.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shayol.bartol.udel.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: scrotar.nss.udel.edu 1076692011 26559 128.175.14.63 (13 Feb 2004
 17:06:51 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@udel.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:06:51 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040210
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <402CE891.D04E88D7@mediasec.de>
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5538 comp.lang.c:22315
 comp.lang.c++:19048 comp.lang.fortran:4952
Date: 2004-02-13T12:06:50-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jan C. Vorbr�ggen wrote:
>>2. Arrays are unaliased in Ada (as I understood), much like in
>>FORTRAN, which may be beneficial in terms of performance (given that
>>the compiler takes advantage of this, and I believe, in case of GCC,
>>it does)
> 
> 
> AFAIK it cannot, at least not fully, because the GCC intermediate language
> lacks the means to express the necessary semantics. The G95 guys are 
> getting the required stuff into the next GCC release.
> 
> 
>>P.S. BTW is the code generated by IFC as fast as G77 on modern CPUs
>>(P4 and Athlon)? Is it worth bothering with IFC on benchmarks, etc.?
> 
> 
> Apart from implementing F95+ instead of F77+, IFC appears to be the
> SPEC CPU compiler at the moment for x86 processors.
> 
> 	Jan

Personal experience shows that, in spite of being a F95 compiler, ifc 
can whup g77's butt at producing fast F77 code. In switching from the 
latter to the former, my radiative transfer codes experienced a speed-up 
of about a factor of two, which is not to be sneezed at.

Rich T