Related articles |
---|
is C necessarily faster than C++ tbrannon@mars.mars.eecs.lehigh.edu (1995-04-03) |
Re: is C necessarily faster than C++ rfg@rahul.net (Ronald F. Guilmette) (1995-04-06) |
Re: is C necessarily faster than C++ maccer@MT.net (1995-04-06) |
Re: is C necessarily faster than C++ dave@edo.ho.att.com (1995-04-16) |
Re: is C necessarily faster than C++ t.hulek@imperial.ac.uk (1995-04-18) |
Re: is C necessarily faster than C++ A.McEwan@lpac.ac.uk (Alistair McEwan) (1995-04-18) |
Re: is C necessarily faster than C++ Marianne.Mueller@Eng.Sun.COM (1995-04-07) |
Re: is C necessarily faster than C++ kohtala@laurel.trs.ntc.nokia.com (1995-04-09) |
Re: is C necessarily faster than C++ rdo@elt.com (1995-04-10) |
Re: is C necessarily faster than C++ tmb@netcom.com (1995-04-20) |
Re: is C necessarily faster than C++ ruiter@ruls41.fsw.leidenuniv.nl (1995-04-20) |
Re: is C necessarily faster than C++ cliffc@crocus.hpl.hp.com (1995-04-17) |
Re: is C necessarily faster than C++ gardner@pink-panther.cs.uiuc.edu (1995-04-28) |
[15 later articles] |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | Marianne.Mueller@Eng.Sun.COM (Marianne Mueller) |
Keywords: | C, C++, performance |
Organization: | Sun |
References: | 95-04-044 |
Date: | Fri, 7 Apr 1995 19:20:11 GMT |
>This guy in my lab keeps refusing to use C++ in our program intended
>to simulate somatosensory neural circuits because he says it is slower
>than C. My (uninformed) response was that most of what you see as
>overhead (ie, message routing, value accessing, type checking) is
>optimized away at compile-time.
I don't have pointers to empirical studies (would love to hear of any)
but depending on the compiler and the OS, it may be the case that
C++ programs page a lot more than C programs do.
Some people have said that not only X, but C++, was dreamed up by
DRAM manufacturers.
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.