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: 1014db,304c86061dc69dba X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,a65b0363ccb3eff2,start X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-15 11:17:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed1.e.nsc.no!nsc.no!nextra.com!uio.no!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.cc.tut.fi!news.helsinki.fi!not-for-mail From: Joona I Palaste Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Ada performance (was No call for Ada ) Followup-To: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.java.programmer Date: 15 Feb 2004 19:17:22 GMT Organization: University of Helsinki Message-ID: References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org> <2460735.u7KiuvdgQP@linux1.krischik.com> <54759e7e.0402081525.50c7adae@posting.google.com> <54759e7e.0402091826.2847e0c@posting.google.com> <54759e7e.0402101819.95cec1d@posting.google.com> <88dc613b.0402121520.bf939f8@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sirppi.helsinki.fi X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1076872642 3108 128.214.205.27 (15 Feb 2004 19:17:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@helsinki.fi NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Feb 2004 19:17:22 GMT User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (OSF1/V4.0 (alpha)) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5580 comp.lang.c:22572 comp.lang.java.programmer:17645 Date: 2004-02-15T19:17:22+00:00 List-Id: MSG scribbled the following on comp.lang.c: > I replaced the dead Java group with comp.lang.fortran - maybe they'll > clue us in on the matrix multiplication performance issues (or at > least keep Adaists from feeding us strange explanations). You couldn't be bothered to find a _live_ Java group instead, such as comp.lang.java.programmer? Followups set to comp.lang.ada and comp.lang.java.programmer. > To recap the discussion (or my understanding of it) : > 1. GNAT, an Ada compiler, is a front end to GCC and so should use the > same "window" (i.e. local) optimizations GCC does > 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) > 3. Ada is compiled to native code and isn't garbage collected, which > puts its execution mode in the same language group with C, C++ and > Fortran > And yet, dispite all of these (especially (1)). GNAT did not fair as > well as GCC and G++ (I'm sure G77 would have done at least as well). > 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.? -- /-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\ \-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/ "Stronger, no. More seductive, cunning, crunchier the Dark Side is." - Mika P. Nieminen