Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!weyrich!orville From: orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: NAG Fortran 90 announcement Message-ID: <1991Jun26.173409.443@weyrich.UUCP> Date: 26 Jun 91 17:34:09 GMT References: <26453@beta.gov> <1991Jun25.214710.21152@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <26487@beta.gov> Reply-To: orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) Organization: Weyrich Computer Consulting Lines: 29 In article <26487@beta.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: >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? Perhaps the issue here is whether 15% slower is an "enormous slowdown"? Perhaps the issue is what happens when one is not using minis or micros? Perhaps the issue is that the Fortran Journal did not consider the use of vectorizing C compilers on machines that could take advantage of vectorization? -------------------------------------- ****************************** Orville R. Weyrich, Jr., Ph.D. Certified Systems Professional Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net Weyrich Computer Consulting Voice: (602) 391-0821 POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261 Fax: (602) 391-0023 (Yes! I'm available) -------------------------------------- ******************************