Prev: Is there an Ada compiler whose Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions.Log(Base=>10,X=>variable) is efficient?
Next: Ada-based Primer in Big-Oh Notation
From: (see below) on 15 Feb 2010 13:26
On 15/02/2010 10:58, in article
alpine.LNX.2.00.1002151055530.17315(a)Bluewhite64.example.net, "Colin Paul
Gloster" <Colin_Paul_Gloster(a)ACM.org> wrote:

> Of the two programs shown, the fastest C++ implementation on one test
> platform took less than one millisecond and the fastest Ada
> implementation took one minute and 31 seconds and 874 milliseconds on
> the same platform. Both g++ and gnatmake were from the same
> installation of GCC 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-44).

Is that 1 millisecond for 1e6 calls? This implies 1ns per call in C++.
I find it incredible that a log function could be so fast.
I think the loop body must be evaluated at compile-time in C++.

On my system your Ada code gives:

6.34086408536266E+08

real 0m33.918s
user 0m33.864s
sys 0m0.025s

And your original C++ code gives:

6.34086e+08
real 0m0.110s
user 0m0.003s
sys 0m0.003s

But if I replace the C++ loop body by:

for(int j=1; j<=500; ++j)
answer += std::log10(j*0.100000000000000000000);
It now gives:

6.34086e+08
real 0m18.112s
user 0m18.082s
sys 0m0.015s

This less than twice as fast as the more generalized Ada code.

The simpler inner loop:
for(int j=1; j<=500; ++j)
answer += j;
gives:

1.2525e+11
real 0m0.677s
user 0m0.614s
sys 0m0.003s

So the difference cannot be due to loop overhead.
--
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Is there an Ada compiler whose Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions.Log(Base=>10,X=>variable) is efficient?
Next: Ada-based Primer in Big-Oh Notation