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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-12 22:39:28 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Per Sandberg Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada performance (was No call for Ada ) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:37:31 +0100 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org> <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com> <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> Reply-To: per.sandberg@bredband.net NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1076654263 89176 80.67.180.195 (13 Feb 2004 06:37:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:37:43 +0000 (UTC) To: MSG , comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, sv In-Reply-To: <88dc613b.0402121520.bf939f8@posting.google.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5519 Date: 2004-02-13T07:37:31+01:00 You published the results but not the source code that has ben used. One thing you must do in order to be belived is to publish the sourcs becouse if you are doing the exacgtly same thing in Ada/C/C++ the results shall be the about same. And the you are comparing GCC/VC what about compiler switches and optimization? /Just normal asking /Per MSG wrote: > James Rogers wrote in message news:... > >>msg1825@yahoo.com (MSG) wrote in >>news:54759e7e.0402101819.95cec1d@posting.google.com: >> >> >>>Can you write (*) a matrix multiplication routine in Ada, compile it >>>with GNAT and measure the number CPU cycles per FLOP, compare to a >>>similar routine in C? >>>The shootout seems to put GNAT closer to Perl and Java than to C/C++. >> >>The shootout numbers I saw put vc at .07, gcc at 0.10 and GNAT at .20. >>Java was 0.73 and Perl was 34.31. >> >>I do not see how .2 is closer to .7 or 34 than it is to .1. >> >>Your mathematics seems seriously flawed. > > > Only to the uninitiated :) > > To keep it simple (I'm a mathematician actually), you seem to be > giving special importance on the execution _time_ and the > _arithmetic_ average, as opposed to, say, execution _speed_ (or the > _harmonic_ average). Let's compare speeds in tasks per second using > your data: > > VC = 14.2 > GCC = 10.0 > GNAT = 5.0 > Java = 1.4 > Perl = 0.03 > > Now can you see how GNAT is "closer" to both Java and Perl than even > to the "slower" of the C compilers here? :) > > > 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). > > 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). > > > MSG > > 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.? > _______________________________________________ > comp.lang.ada mailing list > comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org > http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada >