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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,76ec5d55630beb71 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-09 07:38:41 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.clear.net.nz!news.clear.net.nz.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:42:59 -0500 From: Craig Carey Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada 200X Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 02:07:56 +1200 Message-ID: References: <3EDC0BE6.42300129@somewhere.nil> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Customer of Mercury Telecommunications Ltd Cache-Post-Path: drone5.qsi.net.nz!unknown@tnt1-169.quicksilver.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: drone5-svc-skyt.qsi.net.nz X-Original-Trace: 10 Jun 2003 02:08:03 +1200, drone5-svc-skyt.qsi.net.nz NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.97.37.6 X-Trace: sv3-LMF57g2orbZ7Y7wUzEgmZXIsYO7TpqNTrX77ek/xyk0ePxPevhBxSE2lQVs27Pu3gqSsfO7yTNqhOAm!RV72oAXMQZniNNAkS+I2LjDx/4w0clFZ+hRo6g3rGFR8JzCXR045QlqfviYglTB0I5NHU1kT5Y5y!ZPcVZ9M= X-Complaints-To: Complaints to abuse@clear.net.nz X-DMCA-Complaints-To: Complaints to abuse@clear.net.nz X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38858 Date: 2003-06-10T02:07:56+12:00 List-Id: On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 11:14:28 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Dowie" wrote: ... >> for a strings package. A problem I had was the the string code in the >> Charles package of Mr Heaney was too fast in comparison, which was >> resolved by suppressing range checking. > >Sorry, can you expand on the 'too fast' statement?!?! :-) > Those packages are here: http://home.earthlink.net/~matthewjheaney/charles/ http://www.ijs.co.nz/code/ada95_strings_pkg.zip (19KB My strings package was intended to to be fast and open. Mr H's need not be fast (but may be). The idealism includes that of having functions return a private type (implying slicing is hidden in the package). Is MinGW too slow ?. Maybe someone could fix it perhaps. The Charles code resizes strings using a factor of 2.0 (i.e. 100%). I used 1.70 (70%) after some testing (in Windows 2000). In 2003, the GCC compiler defaulted to using this figure for some resizing of its garbage collector (ref gcc/gcc/doc/): The resize factor is: Min (30% + 70% * (RAM / 1GB), 100%). In my strings package, values outside of 1.6 and 2 (to 2.2) were clearly slower. So assuming a cut-off of 1.57, then MinGW GCC in Windows is suboptimally slow when there is less 395 MB of RAM. MinGW does not have that parameter. GNAT has a big factor of 2 so no mistakes there. At 2003\01\27 13:01 -0600 Monday, Benjamin Kosnik wrote to gcc@gcc.gnu.org: > >time make >248.736u 26.373s 4:59.60 91.8% 0+0k 0+0io 503943pf+0w > >time make CXXFLAGS="--param ggc-min-heapsize=8192" >214.521u 27.306s 4:10.44 96.5% 0+0k 0+0io 512759pf+0w > >time make CXXFLAGS="--param ggc-min-heapsize=16384 --param ggc-min-expand=50" >193.816u 30.121s 3:49.56 97.5% 0+0k 0+0io 524642pf+0w > >Erp. So, with these flags I can save a minute each recompile. C++ >compiles on templatized code end up being 25% faster. > >Aaaaaaaaaaghh!!!!!! Why aren't these flags documented!!!! Why aren't >the defaults sane??? > >-benjamin