OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria Vs. VC++ Benchmark

• Posted by Jason Leit <jasonleit at HOTMAIL.COM> Jun 19, 2000
• 467 views

I'm glad you looked at the benchmarks :)

On my machine I get 2600 ms for the while loops in Euphoria, and 133 ms in
C++, it's probably because of the low-end AMD K6 166Mhz I'm running :(.

You know at first I did use sequences for the array test, then when porting
the benchmarks to C++ I realised I did a foolish thing as there are no
sequences in C++ and comparing them to arrays is not fair. So I put a
poke-benchmark *and* kept the sequence benchmark in the Euphoria version,
but then I added the overall time and Euphoria thus was doing one extra
benchmark. So I took the sequence benchmark out completely.

I'm glad to see that VC++ wasn't as fast as it apeared to be on my machine
(250 times faster than Euphoria!!), but it would have mattered little since
soon we can use a C or C++ compiler to do the compilation for us anyways :)

Bar to say that I got 67 errors when first compiling the VC++ version,
and 0 when compiling the Euphoria version :)

Jason Leit,
I'm feeling much better now :)


>Thanks for the benchmarks.
>I tried them on my machine (using the Euphoria interpreter)
>and found the following:
>
>Euphoria  while loops: 435 ms
>fully optimized C++ while loops: 158 ms
>C++ is 2.8x faster
>
>Euphoria  array init: 1459 ms
>fully optimized C++ array init: 298 ms
>C++ is 4.9x faster
>
>However, in C++ you have:
>for(i = 0;i < 100;i++)
>      foo[i] = i;
>and you claim that that's equivalent to:
>for i = 1 to 100 do
>     poke(foo3+(i*4),i)
>end for
>in Euphoria. Why not write the more obvious:
>for i = 1 to 100 do
>     foo[i] = i
>end for
>in Euphoria? You could create foo as:
>sequence foo
>foo = repeat(0, 100)
>instead of allocating memory.
>When written this way Euphoria takes only 769ms.
>So the ratio is just 2.6.
>(And note that sequences are much
>more general than simple C arrays)
>
>On the 6 other benchmarks, C++ took 0 ms.
>That's because they are very small, very artificial
>benchmarks, that don't compute anything useful.
>The C++ compiler can see at compile-time that nothing
>useful is computed, so it deletes all the code.
>
>You have to be careful when setting up small artificial
>benchmarks with C/C++. For example, if you don't print
>or somehow use, the result of a calculation, the compiler
>might just delete all the code used in calculating that result.
>That's very clever, but rarely helps in a real program.
>
>You used Euphoria 2.0 to bind.
>If you bind with Euphoria 2.2
>the .exe size will drop from 150K down to 79K since
>exw.exe is now compressed.
>
>Regards,
>    Rob Craig
>    Rapid Deployment Software
>    http://www.RapidEuphoria.com

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com