Re: Poor performance with GNAT-GPL-2017

[Anh Vo <anhvofrcaus@gmail.com>]

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 12:21:19 PM UTC-7, Charly wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 15. Juni 2017 20:00:07 UTC+2 schrieb Anh Vo:
> > On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:31:52 AM UTC-7, Charly wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, 15. Juni 2017 17:19:20 UTC+2 schrieb Charly:
> > > > Am Dienstag, 13. Juni 2017 21:46:13 UTC+2 schrieb alkh...@gmail.com:
> > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 6:28:17 PM UTC+3, Mark Lorenzen wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:23:34 PM UTC+2, Charly wrote:
> > 
> > > > -----
> > > Some aditional strange results, all without any tasking (new option -t 0)
> > > 
> > > gnat-gpl-2016 -O
> > > duration 3485 ms
> > > 
> > > gnat-gpl-2016 -O2
> > > duration 4713 ms
> > > 
> > > gnat-gpl-2016 -O3
> > > duration 2772 ms
> > > 
> > > gnat-gpl-2017 -O
> > > duration 3375 ms
> > > 
> > > gnat-gpl-2017 -O2
> > > duration 4480 ms
> > > 
> > > gnat-gpl-2017 -O3
> > > duration 4823 ms
> > > 
> > > To summarize I draw two conclusions
> > > This year optimization level -O is the best choice,
> > > Try several optimization levels next year when gnat-gpl-2018 is out.
> > 
> > What numbers will you get if you run it say 10 times?
> > 
> > Anh Vo
> I did 10 runs for gnat-gpl-2017 with -O3 and 10 runs with -O
> 
> -O3:
>  4846 ms
>  4825 ms
>  4831 ms
>  4838 ms
>  4825 ms
>  4842 ms
>  4814 ms
>  4826 ms
>  4824 ms
>  4838 ms
> 
> -O:
>  3371 ms
>  3374 ms
>  3368 ms
>  3373 ms
>  3370 ms
>  3364 ms
>  3366 ms
>  3375 ms
>  3370 ms
>  3364 ms
> 
> As you can see the results are VERY stable

Indeed, the results are pretty stable. Thank you for running and posting the results.