kumard@sunybcs (Deepak Kumar) (01/25/88)
We just got an installation of the Modula2 compiler for the Encore. I think it is a port of the ETH compiler. But it does not have the standard set of library modules, instead we have the OSSI library with names begining with SIBlah.def etc. Does anybody have the standard interface? One can always sit down and write one (using the OSSI lib) but.... Also, it has an older version of the parralel programming interface 'libu'. Does anybody know if the newer version 'libpp' has been ported? Deepak. kumard@gort.cs.buffalo.EDU kumard@sunybcs.BITNET kumard@sunybcs.UUCP Deepak Kumar, Dept. of CS, 226 Bell Hall, SUNY@Buffalo, NY 14260.
soper@encore.UUCP (Pete Soper) (01/26/88)
In article <8026@sunybcs.UUCP> kumard@sunybcs.UUCP (Deepak Kumar) writes: > We just got an installation of the Modula2 compiler for > the Encore. I think it is a port of the ETH compiler. But This compiler is called "ETH/IIT Modula-2". It is a third party package based on a heavily modified version of the ETH single pass compiler, and a port of the OSSI runtime libraries. This is distributed with full source code by Illinois Institute of Technology. Licenses from Modula Corp (for the compiler) and the OSSI authors must be executed. Both the ETH compiler and OSSI libraries were used because they were available and could be distributed with source code for next to nothing. The compiler produces horrible native code in no time flat. For example, the compiler recompiles itself on a Multimax 120 (the slowest Multimax model) in 45 seconds. Runtime performance is about 1/4 as good as that of equivalent C programs compiled with Encore C, based on the Hennessey/Nye benchmarks. There was a plan to have proper user documentation but so far this hasn't worked out and documentation consists of two man pages and the source code. A source level debugger is also hoped for, but this hasn't happened yet either. > it does not have the standard set of library modules, instead > we have the OSSI library with names begining with SIBlah.def > etc. Does anybody have the standard interface? One can What standard set of library modules? There are many, many different sets of runtimes for M2 systems. The thing to notice is that OSSI includes routines to do all the usual things you are likely to want to do and most of the ROUTINE names discussed in the Wirth book are present. The module names are as they came from the OSSI authors and cannot be changed (e.g. from SITerminal to Terminal) without violating their license. > Also, it has an older version of the parralel programming > interface 'libu'. Does anybody know if the newer version > 'libpp' has been ported? A libpp interface has not been made, as far as I know. All of the source code for the libu module is provided, however, and it is absolutely trivial. An interface to libpp made out of the libu module would be just as trivial. Sorry to be long winded about this, but it's not like we have to wade through a lot of traffic in this news group.
rion@wdl1.UUCP (Rion Cassidy) (01/30/88)
Pete Soper writes: >Runtime performance is about 1/4 as good as that of equivalent C >programs compiled with Encore C, based on the Hennessey/Nye >benchmarks. Is this typical of modula-2? Is C usually 4 times faster for equivalent programs? Rion Cassidy Ford Aerospace rion@ford-wdl1.arpa ...{sgi,sun,ucbvax}!wdl1!rion All opinions stated here are my own, not my employer's.
soper@encore.UUCP (Pete Soper) (02/10/88)
In article <3740001@wdl1.UUCP> rion@wdl1.UUCP (Rion Cassidy) writes: >Pete Soper writes: > >>Runtime performance is about 1/4 as good as that of equivalent C >>programs compiled with Encore C, based on the Hennessey/Nye >>benchmarks. > >Is this typical of modula-2? Is C usually 4 times faster for >equivalent programs? The third party Modula-2 that runs on Multimax is based on the Wirth one pass compiler with its naive code generator virtually unmodified except for what was needed to generate Unix object files and decent runtime checking code. The Encore C compiler on the other hand uses many state of the art global optimization techniques to generate fast code. So the four to one difference is a statement about compiler technology, not about something inherent in one language or the other. If and when there is an "Encore Modula-2" you could expect the code quality gap to be eliminated or greatly reduced. ****************************** I have a question. Who would I write to and what exactly would I ask for to get a copy of the currently proposed BSI Modula-2 standard? If there is a charge I can send a Bank of Scotland check. Thanks. ****************************** -- -------------------------------------------------------- Pete Soper, Encore Computer Corp (919) 481-3730) arpa: soper@multimax.arpa (192.5.63.14) uucp: {necntc,talcott,ihnp4,decvax,allegra}!encore!soper
marti@ethz.UUCP (Robert Marti) (02/14/88)
In article <3740001@wdl1.UUCP>, rion@wdl1.UUCP (Rion Cassidy) writes: > > Is this typical of modula-2? Is C usually 4 times faster for > equivalent programs? > No. Given a good M-2 compiler, they are about the same. -- Robert Marti Phone: +41 1 256 52 36 Institut fur Informatik ETH Zentrum/SOT CSNET/ARPA: marti%ifi.ethz.ch@relay.cs.net CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland UUCP: ...uunet!mcvax!ethz!marti
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (02/15/88)
In article <2562@encore.UUCP>, soper@encore.UUCP (Pete Soper) writes: > In article <8026@sunybcs.UUCP> kumard@sunybcs.UUCP (Deepak Kumar) writes: > > it does not have the standard set of library modules, instead > > we have the OSSI library with names begining with SIBlah.def > > etc. Does anybody have the standard interface? One can > What standard set of library modules? There are many, many different sets of > runtimes for M2 systems. Bingo. I admire Modula-2, but I'm going to keep using 'C' until such time as this situation changes. I can write portable 'C' programs that do a reasonably efficient job at system level utilities, and can be recompiled without change on a variety of systems. I don't know of any other language for which that's true. Perhaps if some of you Modula hotshots got together and rammed a non-proprietary standard library (that at least provided the equivalent of the 'C' stdio library) through, Modula would become a real alternative for people who need to work on more than one processor/compiler pair. (Perhaps you could co-ordinate with Henry Spencer on his UNIX libraries project...) -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
schaub@sugar.UUCP (Markus Schaub) (02/16/88)
In article <2562@encore.UUCP>, soper@encore.UUCP (Pete Soper) writes: > source code for next to nothing. The compiler produces horrible native code > in no time flat. For example, the compiler recompiles itself on a Multimax 120 > (slowest Multimax model) in 45 seconds. Runtime performance is about 1/4 as > good as that of equivalent C programs compiled with Encore C, based on the > Hennessey/Nye benchmarks. There was a plan to have proper user documentation We are working with the MC68000 version of ETH's compiler and are pleased with the code generated. What processor does an Encore have? Do you know any reasons for this poor performance? -- // Markus Schaub uunet!nuchat!sugar!schaub (713) 523 8422 // M2Amiga Developer trying to get back the money I paid for my \\ // Amiga by selling a few M2Amiga. \X/ c/o Interface Technologies Corp, 3336 Richmond #323, Houston Tx 77098
alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy) (02/16/88)
In article <3740001@wdl1.UUCP> rion@wdl1.UUCP (Rion Cassidy) writes: >Pete Soper writes: > >>Runtime performance is about 1/4 as good as that of equivalent C >>programs compiled with Encore C, based on the Hennessey/Nye >>benchmarks. > >Is this typical of modula-2? Is C usually 4 times faster for >equivalent programs? The difference between different compilers for the SAME language on the SAME machine running the SAME operating system can vary by more than a factor of five. This makes it very difficult to get objective measurements of the difference in speed a language makes (assuming all the languages being compared use the same execution technology: all are compiled or all are interpreted). The parse tree that is generated by a C compiler and the one generated by a Modula-2 compiler are extremely similar. They can pretty much share the same code generator. In those systems where they do share the same code generator, they produce very similar benchmark results. --alan@pdn
soper@encore.UUCP (Pete Soper) (02/27/88)
In article <2270@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes: >The difference between different compilers for the SAME language on the >SAME machine running the SAME operating system can vary by more than a >factor of five. This makes it very difficult to get objective >measurements of the difference in speed a language makes (assuming Right. I was making a statement about compiler technology and the actual performance of a few compilers, so people would know what to expect. Nothing more. -- Pete Soper, Encore Computer Corp (919) 481-3730 901 Kildaire Farm rd., bldg D Cary, NC 27511 USA arpa: soper@multimax.arpa (192.5.63.14) uucp: {necntc,talcott,ihnp4,decvax,allegra}!encore!soper