Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!noc.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w
From: gsh7w@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: NAG Fortran 90 announcement
Message-ID: <1991Jun27.180712.7293@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 27 Jun 91 18:07:12 GMT
References: <1991Jun25.214710.21152@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <26487@beta.gov> <1991Jun26.173409.443@weyrich.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 26

Jim Giles wrotes (in a message that hasn't made it to my machine, so
apologies if I missed something important):

Me:
#>|> 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?

I am saying that from your discription the Fortran Journal did not
consider vectorizing C compilers, so there are no facts to support you
guess that there would be an "enormous slowdown" in code translated
into C rather than compiled directly by a fortran compiler.

Now, I don't have any facts about the speed loss in a vectorizing C
compiler. Do you Jim? 

Anyone have have speculation.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w