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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "G.B." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Everything You Know Is Wrong Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:42:29 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: Reply-To: nonlegitur@futureapps.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:39:53 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b96887e80893c84a90c3007226ca0d1c"; logging-data="29932"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/CiDXSsSr5JfTgJ5JgmJOAzaj/mdJvKwc=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:vKd2yOlAidKpAAyPYMGUb1v/5pA= Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:28916 Date: 2015-12-29T12:42:29+01:00 List-Id: On 28.12.15 21:40, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On 2015-12-28 19:50, Nicholas Collin Paul de Gloucester wrote: > >> What is "this"? > > Energy saving set as the goal [of computing?]. The proper goal is better > performance, when that require lower voltage be it so. > > I understood Georg meant "green computing" which is reverse - buying > energy by selling performance. I was thinking of mobile computing, among other forms of computing that depend on the presence of, say, batteries. The hardware people do a lot to reduce energy needs. The software people could add to that. One addition is almost existing already, in JIT compilers that deploy alternative compiled routines. Of course, the compilation step doesn't necessarily save energy now. But optimization demonstrates that compiled routines could differ by energy consumption. Considering the above I was also thinking of resource sharing, the resource, however, being energy. When the amount of energy available to the computer depends on wall clock time, then a programmer arranges for code whose execution can be postponed to when there is sufficient energy. For example, if two subprograms are independent and their execution can be postponed until a third one needs their results, then several orders of execution become possible and this will not require tasking. Even interleaving is o.K. op1 | op1 op2 op2 \ / | op3 op3 Can pragma Pure be extended to allow this optimization? > In the real world we get better performance at lower energy, just per > laws of physics, as you pointed out. You would be in control of Watts for performance.