OpenEuphoria

Re: loops & perfomace

• Posted by martin.stachon at worldonline.cz Apr 28, 2001
• 362 views

Euphoria is smarter than C...

----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Fines <fines at macalester.edu>
Subject: Re: loops & perfomace


> >
> >
> I don't think it makes a difference.  Euphoria would appear to be
executing
> the for loop the 'smart' way.  I did a quick test with this code--
>
> sequence s
> s=repeat(32,50000000)
> atom a,t0,loop_overhead
> integer lengthofs
>
> t0=time()
> lengthofs=length(s)
> for c=1 to lengthofs do
>     a=power(2,20)
> end for
> loop_overhead=time()-t0
> puts(1,sprintf("%d seconds",loop_overhead))
>
> ...and then tried it, replacing this line:
> for c=1 to lengthofs do
> with this one:
> for c=1 to length(s) do
>
> and it ran at the same speed.
>
> This code was just lifted from the docs located in
> C:\EUPHORIA\HTML\LIB_S_T.HTM, and slightly modified...
>
> --Ted
>
> --On Saturday, April 28, 2001 12:01 PM +0200 martin.stachon at worldonline.cz
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Need a better decision-making tool to research, evaluate and
> > select software for enterprise applications or manufacturing
> > point solutions? Masg.com is where you'll find help.
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > i've got an performace question. We've got a loop
> >
> > for i=1 to length(s) do
> >        ...
> > end for
> >
> > is length(s) evaluated every time loop is done? So would be in Euphoria
> > faster
> >
> > l= length(s)
> > for i=1 to l do
<snip>

> >
> >
> >