Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!jhunix!doug From: doug@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Douglas W O'neal) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Fortran to C Translator Reviewed Message-ID: <5720@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> Date: 2 Jul 90 13:00:19 GMT References: <1990Jun26.143911.27501@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <1990Jun29.225129.5160@siia.mv.com> Reply-To: doug@jhuvms.bitnet (Douglas W O'Neal) Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF Lines: 22 In article <1990Jun29.225129.5160@siia.mv.com> drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) writes: ->In 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