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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,325a055bed62c230
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Apex vs GNAT on solaris
Date: 1999/12/08
Message-ID: <wccemcxv5vv.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 558158516
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <82hiuj$74o$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <82hnll$ahu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <82hokf$b9l$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <82ktik$j4c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <82lcr0$tsg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

reason67@my-deja.com writes:

> BTW: Both compilers were set at no optimization.

Which is why the run-time measurements are completely meaningless.  If
you care about run-time efficiency, then you want to know how well the
compiler can do, not how poorly it can do if you turn off optimization.
The only thing that makes sense is to compare compilers at their highest
optimization levels.

The only reasons to turn optimization off are to make compile time
faster, to make debugging easier, or because you think the optimizer is
buggy.  But none of those things were measured!

- Bob