Re: PL/I nostalgia

"robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au>
Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:04:53 +1000

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Decades of compiler technology and what do we get? robert@prino.org (Robert AH Prins) (2012-04-22)
Re: PL/I nostalgia, was Decades of compiler technology and what do we gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-04-23)
Re: PL/I nostalgia robin51@dodo.com.au (robin) (2012-04-25)
Re: PL/I nostalgia gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-04-24)
Re: PL/I nostalgia robin51@dodo.com.au (robin) (2012-04-28)
Re: PL/I nostalgia gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-04-28)
Re: PL/I nostalgia bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2012-04-29)
Re: PL/I nostalgia robin51@dodo.com.au (robin) (2012-09-19)
Re: PL/I nostalgia gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-09-19)
Re: PL/I nostalgia robin51@dodo.com.au (robin) (2012-09-21)
Re: PL/I nostalgia gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-09-21)
Re: PL/I nostalgia robin51@dodo.com.au (robin) (2012-09-30)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:04:53 +1000
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 12-04-070 12-04-077 12-04-081 12-04-082 12-04-084
Keywords: PL/I, history
Posted-Date: 18 Sep 2012 21:33:00 EDT

> [The code fron PL/I F was comparablw to Fortran G, but much worse than
> Fortran H. The PL/I optimizing compiler's code was better, but still
> not as good as Fortran H and its descendants. -John]


Finally I have to hand Tucker's "Programming Languages".


Case study 2, matrix inversion with 20 x 20 data:


with IBM 370-145 FORTRAN (G) execution time 8.41 secs
                                                                                                (H) execution time 5.28 secs.


With IBM 370-145 PL/I (F) execution time 6.31 secs
                                                            PL/I Optimiser execution time 5.77 secs.


(refer to pages 112 and 279 for times)


However, in the case of the PL/I program, Tucker //omitted// to supply
the option (REORDER) which is necessary to obtain full optimisation.
Thus, the PL/I optimiser execution obtained was larger than it should
have been.


It is clear that the times for FORTRAN (G) and PL/I(F) are equivalent,
and that FORTRAN(H) and PL/I optimiser times are equivalent.


As well as that, FORTRAN (H) required c. 150K of memory (i.e. a 256K
machine) which was far more than the 128K that we had initially,
whereas PL/I (F) required only 64K and IIRC FORTRAN (G) a little more.


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.