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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,103803355c3db607 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.228.227 with SMTP id sl3mr1479342pbc.5.1340962455513; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 02:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni32795pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT (GCC) Profile Guided Compilation Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:34:19 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-06-29T11:34:19+02:00 List-Id: On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 02:17:19 -0700 (PDT), Keean Schupke wrote: > Anyone have any ideas why profile guided compilation performs so poorly > with Ada compared to C++? Probably because you programmed it using low level C-ish stuff like addresses instead of accessing data directly. In general, if you write a C program in Ada (or any other language), you cannot expect it do better than in C. To beat C, the precondition is to design it in Ada way. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de