Re: Ada performance (was No call for Ada )
From: James Rogers (jimmaureenrogers_at_att.net)
Date: 02/13/04
- Previous message: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Topic Nazis (OR Mystery: static variables & performance)"
- In reply to: MSG: "Ada performance (was No call for Ada )"
- Next in thread: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Ada performance (was No call for Ada )"
- Reply: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Ada performance (was No call for Ada )"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:39:34 GMT
msg_1825@yahoo.com (MSG) wrote in
news:88dc613b.0402121520.bf939f8@posting.google.com:
>> 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
This is physical nonesense. Your analysis would say that Perl, which
performed 300 matrix multiplications in 34.31 seconds is on the same
order of speed as some language taking 28640 seconds. Which would
result in a "speed" of .0003. 28640 seconds is 24 hours.
You are stating that Perl has a speed closer to a language taking
24 hours to complete the task than to VC.
The important relationship is the ratio between the numbers, not the
absolute difference between the numbers. Given that relationship
GNAT is as close to Java as it is to VC, and Java is closer to VC
than it is to Perl.
Jim Rogers
>
> 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.?
- Previous message: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Topic Nazis (OR Mystery: static variables & performance)"
- In reply to: MSG: "Ada performance (was No call for Ada )"
- Next in thread: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Ada performance (was No call for Ada )"
- Reply: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Ada performance (was No call for Ada )"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
