 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=fannkuch&lang=all
I wonder why there's no C++ version compiled with the Intel compiler.
It should beat gcc 3.x in optimizations.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's not the .net runtime which is running the program.
You really, really ought to read the article I linked to, where they
actually describe what they did.
Answer: No. If you compile C++.NET to CIL, then it's the .NET runtime
running the code. If you don't compile it to CIL, then you get none of the
advantages of .NET such as the ability to link to other functions that are
compiled to the CIL such as those written in C#. You can of course compile
some to CIL and some to native instructions, so this is a bit simplified.
You also lose some features of C++ that aren't supported by the CLR.
Otherwise, why would you have a 15% speed penalty?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=fannkuch&lang=all
>
> I wonder why there's no C++ version compiled with the Intel compiler.
> It should beat gcc 3.x in optimizations.
Yes, but the compiler can't optimize algorithms. A naive algorithm led
to g++-compiled code to be about as slow as everyone else. ;)
OTOH, Intel FORTRAN was still slower than g++.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I wonder why there's no C++ version compiled with the Intel compiler.
> It should beat gcc 3.x in optimizations.
I'm pretty sure that on one or other of the benchmarks, there was. I
might, however, be mistaken...
(There's something like four or five different target machines the
benchmarks have been run on. I think one included Intel C and Intel C++.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/11/2009 5:14 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> And, isn't Haskell like an order of magnitude slower than ... just about
> everything else?
Not Java.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/11/2009 5:26 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Really? And what makes you think that? OpenGL with hardware
>>> acceleration is equally fast if you call it from C or Haskell. :-P
>>
>> The original quake was not OpenGL... :) Though, they did release GLQuake.
>
> You're probably right. I never saw it. (I only saw Quake II. For that
> matter, I've never seen Quake III, although I'm told it exists.)
Quake 3 only existed in multiplayer format, as "Quake 3: Arena" and
"Quake 3: Team Arena". These were a direct response to the sudden
popularity of the original Unreal Tournament.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> On 5/11/2009 5:14 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> And, isn't Haskell like an order of magnitude slower than ... just about
>> everything else?
>
> Not Java.
You guys perceptions clearly haven't got updated in years.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/11/2009 11:37 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> On 5/11/2009 5:14 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>> And, isn't Haskell like an order of magnitude slower than ... just about
>>> everything else?
>>
>> Not Java.
>
> You guys perceptions clearly haven't got updated in years.
Sorry.
Not Java ;)
That better? Sometimes I forget the emoticons :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> I've only ever played Q2, so... ;-)
>
> ____ ____
> \ \ \###\
> \ \ \###\
> \ \ \###\
> \ \ \###\ ______________
> \ \ \###\ \_____________|
> \ \ \###\
> / / /####\ ___________
> / / /######\ \__________|
> / / /###/\###\
> / / /###/ \###\
> / / /###/ \###\
> /___/ /###/ \###\
That's Half-wife, not Q2.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:02:28 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Half-wife
Maybe half-husband?
<scnr>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
