Re: Sisal?

Robert Bernecky <bernecky@eecg.toronto.edu>
Fri, 23 Sep 1994 04:15:31 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Sisal? wchang@genome.lbl.gov (1994-09-14)
Re: Sisal? preston@tera.com (1994-09-18)
Re: Sisal? buyukisik_o_f@ae.ge.com (U-E59264-Osman Buyukisik) (1994-09-19)
Re: Sisal? miller@diego.llnl.gov (1994-09-19)
Re: Sisal? bernecky@eecg.toronto.edu (Robert Bernecky) (1994-09-19)
Re: Sisal? bernecky@eecg.toronto.edu (Robert Bernecky) (1994-09-21)
Re: Sisal? bernecky@eecg.toronto.edu (Robert Bernecky) (1994-09-23)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.functional
From: Robert Bernecky <bernecky@eecg.toronto.edu>
Organization: University of Toronto, Computer Engineering
References: 94-09-038 94-09-102
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 04:15:31 GMT

>[re Sisal vs. Fortran performance]


>>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


Let me take some of the wind out of my own sails. I received two
messages from folks who suggested:
      f77 -fast -dalign -O4


This produced code which ran neck and neck with SISAL.


Bob
--

Post a followup to this message

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