Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!news.univ-angers.fr!news.univ-rennes1.fr!irisa.fr!news2.EUnet.fr!news.fnet.fr!ilog!news
From: davis@ilog.fr (Harley Davis)
Subject: Re: CLOS speed, was Re: The new paper and static binding in dylan
In-Reply-To: rwk@inference.com's message of 24 Mar 1995 15:45:24 -0500
Message-ID: <DAVIS.95Mar27113642@passy.ilog.fr>
Lines: 31
Sender: news@ilog.fr
Nntp-Posting-Host: passy
Organization: Ilog SA, Gentilly, France
References: <3ka2ta$887@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> <9503242040.AA26727@rhiannon.inference.com>
Date: 27 Mar 1995 09:36:42 GMT


In article <9503242040.AA26727@rhiannon.inference.com> rwk@inference.com (Robert W. Kerns) writes:

    > > However, even C++ has
    > > limits here.  A benchmark, from comp.lang.c++, shows that C++ is between 20
    > > and 40% slower than C on such operations.  
    > 
    > This doesn't make much sense.  What is the reason?

   A Cfront-based C++ compiler actually uses the C compiler to compile,
   so this makes NO sense as a language compilation.  My guess (I haven't
   seen the benchmark in question) is that it's comparing compilers,
   NOT languages.

Why does it make no sense?  Maybe the version of cfront in question
just generates really crummy C code for the target C compiler.

Personally, however, I have trouble believing that any modern C++
compiler generates significantly slower (or faster) code than the
matching C compiler.

-- Harley Davis
-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harley Davis                            net: davis@ilog.fr
ILOG S.A.                               tel: +33 1 46 63 66 66
2 Avenue Gallini, BP 85                fax: +33 1 46 63 15 82
94253 Gentilly Cedex, France            url: http://www.ilog.com/

           Ilog Talk information: info@ilog.com
