Re: task-safe hash table?

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org>]

tmoran@acm.org writes:

> with ada.calendar,
>      ada.text_io;
> procedure timeprot is
>
> <snip>

This looks like a reasonable test. Here's my results with GNAT 5.04 on
Windows XP (I only kept the second run; the first loads cache):

gnatmake -O0
./timeprot.exe 
a 0.025702000 mics
b 0.026539000 mics
c 0.029333000 mics
prot.a 4.420673000 mics
prot.b 0.504533000 mics
prot.c 0.423238000 mics


gnatmake -O2
./timeprot.exe 
a 0.023188000 mics
b 0.022629000 mics
c 0.023187000 mics
prot.a 7.770820000 mics
prot.b 0.576610000 mics
prot.c 0.529676000 mics

Interesting that it is slower with -02!

AdaCore recommends against using -O3 because it includes "potentially
unsafe and disruptive optimizations". But here it is anyway:

gnatmake -O3
./timeprot.exe 
a 0.014806000 mics
b 0.014527000 mics
c 0.004470000 mics
prot.a 7.431950000 mics
prot.b 0.619911000 mics
prot.c 0.529676000 mics

There is some variation from run to run. But this is pretty convincing
that a protected function call is 25 times slower than a plain
function call. I'll see what AdaCore has to say. And I'll try it on
Lynx, which is more real-time than Windows or Linux :).

-- 
-- Stephe