Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!gatech!bloom-beacon!husc6!encore!soper
From: soper@encore.UUCP (Pete Soper)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2
Subject: Re: Modula2 on Encore (questions)
Summary: different compiler technology involved
Keywords: naive versus globally optimizing
Message-ID: <2642@encore.UUCP>
Date: 9 Feb 88 17:24:02 GMT
References: <8026@sunybcs.UUCP> <3740001@wdl1.UUCP>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: soper@encore.UUCP (Pete Soper)
Organization: Encore Computer Corp, Marlboro, MA
Lines: 31

In article <3740001@wdl1.UUCP> rion@wdl1.UUCP (Rion Cassidy) writes:
>Pete Soper writes:
>
>>Runtime performance is about 1/4 as good as that of equivalent C
>>programs compiled with Encore C, based on the Hennessey/Nye
>>benchmarks.
>
>Is this typical of modula-2?  Is C usually 4 times faster for
>equivalent programs?

The third party Modula-2 that runs on
Multimax is based on the Wirth one pass compiler with its
naive code generator virtually unmodified except for what was needed
to generate Unix object files and decent runtime checking code. The
Encore C compiler on the other hand uses many state of the art
global optimization techniques to generate fast code. So the four to
one difference is a statement about compiler technology, not about
something inherent in one language or the other. If and when there is
an "Encore Modula-2" you could expect the code quality gap to be
eliminated or greatly reduced.

******************************
I have a question. Who would I write to and what exactly would I ask
for to get a copy of the currently proposed BSI Modula-2 standard?
If there is a charge I can send a Bank of Scotland check. Thanks.
******************************
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------
Pete Soper, Encore Computer Corp         (919) 481-3730)
arpa: soper@multimax.arpa (192.5.63.14)
uucp: {necntc,talcott,ihnp4,decvax,allegra}!encore!soper