Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!hsdndev!cmcl2!beta!cochiti.lanl.gov!jlg
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: NAG Fortran 90 announcement
Message-ID: <26487@beta.gov>
Date: 26 Jun 91 00:52:55 GMT
References: <26334@lanl.gov> <PRZEMEK.91Jun24225047@rrdstrad.nist.gov> <26453@beta.gov> <1991Jun25.214710.21152@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: news@beta.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 16

In article <1991Jun25.214710.21152@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
|> In article <26453@beta.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
|> [...]
|> #The Fortran Journal published a benchmark on f2c a few issues back.
|> #As I remember, the average slowdown was about 15%.  The benchmark
|> #was done on minis or micros and didn't show the enormous slowdown
|> #you'd expect on a vector machine or a massively parallel machine.
|> 
|> Why don't you take a benchmark of your choice, run it through f2c,
|> then use one of the vectorizing C compilers on it, and measure the
|> "enormous slowdown", that way we would have facts?

And the Fortran Journal _didn't_ publish facts?  Is that what you're
saying?

J. Giles