|Sisal? email@example.com (1994-09-14)|
|Re: Sisal? firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-09-18)|
|Re: Sisal? email@example.com (U-E59264-Osman Buyukisik) (1994-09-19)|
|Re: Sisal? firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-09-19)|
|Re: Sisal? email@example.com (Robert Bernecky) (1994-09-19)|
|Re: Sisal? firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Bernecky) (1994-09-21)|
|Re: Sisal? email@example.com (Robert Bernecky) (1994-09-23)|
|From:||Robert Bernecky <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Keywords:||functional, performance, Fortran|
|Organization:||University of Toronto, Computer Engineering|
|Date:||Wed, 21 Sep 1994 22:43:07 GMT|
>> Where might I find discussions/critiques/rebuttals regarding
>> Sisal? Is this dataflow/single-assignment language
>> "functional", and how does it manage to beat Fortran?
>It only beats FORTRAN on multi-processor parallel machines. It is first
I hope you'll pardon me for taking some of the wind out of your sails,
but about 5 minutes ago, I completed a benchmark of a simple convolution
code on the SUN-4, comparing SISAL, Fortran, and my APL compiler.
For a fairly hefty convolution (250x4000), I observed times as follows:
F77 -O3 0.730u 0.180s
SISAL -O -nobounds -cc="-O4" 0.610u 0.090s
I'm not ready to announce APL results yet.
Note that this is a vanilla, single processor machine, so your claims
about "only... multiprocessor.,." ain't strictly true.
Basis for comparison: I tried to get the most optimized version of both
fortran and SISAL. I am not that familiar with the SUN-4, and it may be
that there are better-performing compiler options. If so, please let me
One note of interest: I had a fancy, hand-unrolled (10) code, originally
destined for a CRAY X-MP, and it ran SLOWER on the SUN-4 than did the
naive loop. May have been unrolled too far? I don't know.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.