home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.cc.ic.ac.uk!vulture
- From: vulture@imperial.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau)
- Newsgroups: gnu.g++.help,comp.lang.c++,comp.sys.sgi.apps,comp.sys.sgi.misc
- Subject: Re: SGI and C++
- Date: 19 Feb 1996 14:25:10 GMT
- Organization: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
- Sender: vulture@carrion.cc.ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau)
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <4ga186$bk2@oban.cc.ic.ac.uk>
- References: <4f609s$rho@fu-berlin.de> <4f6726$4ch@fido.asd.sgi.com> <4fahih$s13@fu-berlin.de> <4fbhs0$eo3@fido.asd.sgi.com> <4fl2nh$b66@sun20.ccd.bnl.gov>
- Reply-To: vulture@imperial.ac.uk
- NNTP-Posting-Host: cscgc.cc.ic.ac.uk
- Originator: vulture@carrion.cc.ic.ac.uk
-
-
- In article <4fl2nh$b66@sun20.ccd.bnl.gov>, olchansk@a2.phy.bnl.gov (Konstantin Olchanski) writes:
- -
- - Well, while not exactly in the bugs department, but I have found
- - that the SGI implementation of templates is significantly
- - slower than GCC-
- -
- - The GNU complex library uses templates, and when compiled
- - by the SGI compiler, it's about 2 times slower
- - than when compiled by G++ (both using -mips2 -O).
- - If the GNU complex library is modified (to get rid
- - of templates), the SGI-compiled code becomes as fast
- - as the GCC-compiled code.
-
- Essentially that is because the gcc implementation of templates is along
- the lines of "proovide the minimum necessary to get it going", while
- the ATT code (on which the SGI compiler is based) used a more general
- approach.
-
- The "complex" derived type is effectively too small to show the benefit
- of this generality, but gets to bear the full cost of it.
-
- Thomas
- --
- *** Why not use metric units and get things right first time, every time.
- * email: cmaae47@ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau)
- * voice: +44 171 594 6904 (day), +44 171 594 6958 (fax), +44 171 385 6540
- * snail: ICSTM, Computing Services, Kensington SW7 2BX, Great Britain
-