drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (06/30/90)
In <KHB.90Jun26114740@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM> khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages) writes: >>In Digital Review (June 18, 1990) there is a review of Promula.Fortran, a >>Fortran to C source code translator on pages 29 - 31. >An important thing to note is that the reviewer obserseved that the >runtimes of the translated code was about .6 the original fortran times. ^ | Isn't this better?!-------------------------+ What is the real story? >The reviewer tracked down some of the most painful slowdowns and >blames them on the VAX C compiler ... not on C features. David Dick Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company(sm)]
doug@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Douglas W O'neal) (07/02/90)
In article <1990Jun29.225129.5160@siia.mv.com> drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) writes: ->In <KHB.90Jun26114740@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM> khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - SPD Advanced Languages) writes: ->>>In Digital Review (June 18, 1990) there is a review of Promula.Fortran, a ->>>Fortran to C source code translator on pages 29 - 31. ->>An important thing to note is that the reviewer obserseved that the ->>runtimes of the translated code was about .6 the original fortran times. -> ^ ->Isn't this better?!-------------------------+ ->What is the real story? Real story: The benchmark suite that DR uses gave a Vaxstation II/GPX rating of 0.61 MVUPs (MicroVAX II units of processing). Running the original code on the same machine would give a rating of 1.0 MVUPs. Quoting from page 31: "We found that the translated C code ran, at best, neck-and-neck with the Fortran originals, but on average was 0.61 times as fast. The worst-performing kernel was GAMSIM, which ran 0.27 times as fast as its Fortran counterpart." -- Doug O'Neal, Distributed Systems Programmer, Johns Hopkins University doug@jhuvms.bitnet, doug@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu, mimsy!aplcen!jhunix!doug Like many of the features of UNIX, UUCP appears theoretically unworkable... - DEC Professional, April 1990