On 07 Sep 2008, at 21:38, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Jonas Maebe wrote:
You can use -vd to have the compiler print out all compiler options
it interprets (both from configuration files and from the command
line). In general, to get the best code for an Intel Core family
processor, use somethin
Jonas Maebe wrote:
You can use -vd to have the compiler print out all compiler options it
interprets (both from configuration files and from the command line). In
general, to get the best code for an Intel Core family processor, use
something like
-O3ppentium4 -Cppentium4 -Cfsse2
i doubt it'
On 05 Sep 2008, at 20:07, Tom Verhoeff wrote:
I have an Intel-based MacBook Pro. Until recently, I still used
a PowerPC version of FPC. PowerPC code on this machine runs through
(invisible) emulation.
However, I upgraded now to FPC 2.2.2 for Intel on mac.
And to my surprise one of my time-co
I have an Intel-based MacBook Pro. Until recently, I still used
a PowerPC version of FPC. PowerPC code on this machine runs through
(invisible) emulation.
However, I upgraded now to FPC 2.2.2 for Intel on mac.
And to my surprise one of my time-consuming apps is twice slower,
instead of faster.
For example, what do Airplanes use? GNU?
Ada compilers must be certified, so if you are developing software for
avionics *you have* to write your software with a compiler certified for
avionics development.
JK
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@l
On 31 Oct 2007, at 19:11, L wrote:
Further, it is unknown how well the GCC backend optimizes Ada
language constructs as it is primarily designed for the C language.
I assumed that people used not just GNU Ada compilers.. for serious
work.
But I'm not sure.
For example, what do Airplanes u
> Further, it is unknown how well the GCC backend optimizes Ada
> language constructs as it is primarily designed for the C language.
I assumed that people used not just GNU Ada compilers.. for serious work.
But I'm not sure.
For example, what do Airplanes use? GNU?
I'd laugh if Richard Stallman
On Wednesday 31 October 2007 12:35, Daniël Mantione wrote:
> Further, it is unknown how well the GCC backend optimizes Ada
> language constructs as it is primarily designed for the C language.
Well enough. In other words, optimization is about the same - given
fairly equivalent code.
The main d
Op Wed, 31 Oct 2007, schreef Jilani Khaldi:
> > > I hear the Intel C compilers and Fortran compilers and Ada compilers
> > > are better
> > > optimized for certain things since FPC/delphi are generally desinged
> > > for GUI
> > > programming. ;-)
> >
> > C/Fortran yes, Ada no; there exists no
I hear the Intel C compilers and Fortran compilers and Ada compilers are better
optimized for certain things since FPC/delphi are generally desinged for GUI
programming. ;-)
C/Fortran yes, Ada no; there exists no Intel Ada compiler.
False. There's no speed penalty for writing in Ada vs C. They
On 31 Oct 2007, at 00:47, L wrote:
And I'm sure you know you can always use GOTO statements when you
really need
speed out of loops
Actually, in current FPC versions that will more often than not cause
slowdowns, because the compiler cannot optimize as well when goto's
are used.
Jona
> If the code is more efficient with a "goto", this is sufficient to
> justify its use.
Or if the code is clearer, for example to avoid deep nesting...
Or to make clean errors and debugging log files easier:
exit; .// default
//else
error1:
begin
debugln('error1');
exit;
end;
error2
begin
L a écrit :
P.S. Where i can read tips about writing fast FP code?
Also see some of the fastcode projects:
http://www.fastcode.dk/fastcodeproject/fastcodeproject/index.htm
And I'm sure you know you can always use GOTO statements when you really need
speed out of loops
:)
As a matter of fa
bartek a écrit :
On Tuesday 30 October 2007 22:07:21 Valdas Jankūnas wrote:
P.S. Where i can read tips about writing fast FP code?
FP is no Java. You get what you write. If you don't use virtual functions in
OO-code, there are no hidden performance killers.
First identify the bottleneck in yo
> I hear the Intel C compilers and Fortran compilers and Ada compilers are
better
> optimized for certain things since FPC/delphi are generally desinged for GUI
> programming. ;-)
>>
>> C/Fortran yes, Ada no; there exists no Intel Ada compiler. It is also
>> false that FPC is slow because it has be
Op Tue, 30 Oct 2007, schreef L:
> > I think first code is faster than second, because in first code
> > SubCalculate function is in calling function body?
>
> Actually some times local scope functions are slower because the variables
> need
> to be carried around since you are doing somewhat
> > P.S. Where i can read tips about writing fast FP code?
Also see some of the fastcode projects:
http://www.fastcode.dk/fastcodeproject/fastcodeproject/index.htm
And I'm sure you know you can always use GOTO statements when you really need
speed out of loops
:)
(not always, only if absolut
> I think first code is faster than second, because in first code
> SubCalculate function is in calling function body?
Actually some times local scope functions are slower because the variables need
to be carried around since you are doing somewhat of a lexical closure. The
local scope function
On Tuesday 30 October 2007 22:07:21 Valdas Jankūnas wrote:
> L rašė:
> > Here's one: profile your code!
>
> And where can you read how to do that?
> >
> > VALGRIND
>
> I processed my app trough "valgrind -v --tool=callgrind ./my_app",
> opened generated report with Kcachegrid and vi
L rašė:
Here's one: profile your code!
And where can you read how to do that?
VALGRIND
I processed my app trough "valgrind -v --tool=callgrind ./my_app",
opened generated report with Kcachegrid and viewed how many times called
some procedures and etc.
Sorry for stupid question: i have n
Here's one: profile your code!
>>> And where can you read how to do that?
VALGRIND
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Mattias Gärtner rašė:
Zitat von Krishna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 10/30/07, Mattias Gärtner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Zitat von Krishna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 10/30/07, Valdas Jankūnas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
P.S. Where i can read tips about writing fast FP code?
Here's one: profile
Zitat von Krishna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 10/30/07, Mattias Gärtner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Zitat von Krishna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > On 10/30/07, Valdas Jankūnas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > P.S. Where i can read tips about writing fast FP code?
> > > >
> > >
> > > H
On 10/30/07, Mattias Gärtner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zitat von Krishna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On 10/30/07, Valdas Jankūnas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > P.S. Where i can read tips about writing fast FP code?
> > >
> >
> > Here's one: profile your code!
>
> And where can you read how
Zitat von Krishna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 10/30/07, Valdas Jankūnas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > P.S. Where i can read tips about writing fast FP code?
> >
>
> Here's one: profile your code!
And where can you read how to do that?
Mattias
___
fp
On 10/30/07, Valdas Jankūnas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P.S. Where i can read tips about writing fast FP code?
>
Here's one: profile your code!
Cheers,
-Krishna
--
One reason that life is complex is that it has a real part and an imaginary part
-Andrew Koenig
___
Now i write program, that program made extensive calculations. And i
want write fast code. Question about executing speed:
first code-
function Calculate1: Extended;
function SubCalculate: Extended;
begin
...
end;
begin
...
..:=SubCalculate;
...
end;
second code-
function
On 18 okt 2006, at 12:38, Marc Santhoff wrote:
Ah, this was the missing part. I have thought all of this was
implemented only inside the compiler itself ...
It is, except for x86 where the compiler is not involved with the
precision used by the FPU since there are no different opcodes.
J
Am Mittwoch, den 18.10.2006, 11:57 +0200 schrieb Jonas Maebe:
> On 18 okt 2006, at 11:20, Marc Santhoff wrote:
>
> > Divisions do make a difference for me. How can this setting be
> > made, is
> > there a compiler sitch involved or some symbol to define?
>
> http://community.freepascal.org:1000
On 18 okt 2006, at 11:20, Marc Santhoff wrote:
Divisions do make a difference for me. How can this setting be
made, is
there a compiler sitch involved or some symbol to define?
http://community.freepascal.org:1/docs-html/rtl/math/
setprecisionmode.html
Always check the result, since
Am Mittwoch, den 18.10.2006, 09:54 +0200 schrieb Florian Klaempfl:
> Jonas Maebe wrote:
> >
> > On 18 okt 2006, at 08:31, Marc Santhoff wrote:
> >
> >> is anyone aware of or has done a calculations speed comparison for the
> >> four float types (single, double, extended, comp)?
> >
> > For the x
Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 18 okt 2006, at 08:31, Marc Santhoff wrote:
>
>> is anyone aware of or has done a calculations speed comparison for the
>> four float types (single, double, extended, comp)?
>
> For the x87, the only difference can come from cache misses/hits due to
> the different size
On 18 okt 2006, at 08:31, Marc Santhoff wrote:
is anyone aware of or has done a calculations speed comparison for the
four float types (single, double, extended, comp)?
For the x87, the only difference can come from cache misses/hits due
to the different sizes they take up in memory, becaus
Hi,
is anyone aware of or has done a calculations speed comparison for the
four float types (single, double, extended, comp)?
I'm most interested in the first rules of arithmetic.
TIA,
Marc
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
> The first string is always long, so you are doing twice adding a small
> string to a long string. This causes much heap fragmentation.
>
> Try result:= result + (Line + #13#10);
> or
>
> Line := Line + #13#10;
> Result := Result + Line;
Ahh that will probably do the trick. I'll let you know.
>
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Vreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FPC-Pascal users discussions"
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 1:47 AM
Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Speed question for strings
> At 09:46 19-11-2005, you wrote:
> > > L wrote:
>
L505 wrote:
L wrote:
Why is the first and third example *so* much faster than the second example?
Significantly faster.
Because you doubled the number of string concatenations.
Vincent.
Right, but it's not twice as slow :-) Worse... It's at least 50-100 times
slower.
Weird.
I will hav
At 09:46 19-11-2005, you wrote:
> L wrote:
> > Why is the first and third example *so* much faster than the second
example?
> > Significantly faster.
> >
>
> Because you doubled the number of string concatenations.
>
> Vincent.
Right, but it's not twice as slow :-) Worse... It's at least 50-1
> L wrote:
> > Why is the first and third example *so* much faster than the second example?
> > Significantly faster.
> >
>
> Because you doubled the number of string concatenations.
>
> Vincent.
Right, but it's not twice as slow :-) Worse... It's at least 50-100 times
slower.
Weird.
I will hav
L wrote:
Why is the first and third example *so* much faster than the second example?
Significantly faster.
Because you doubled the number of string concatenations.
Vincent.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.fr
Why is the first and third example *so* much faster than the second example?
Significantly faster.
There's really not that much difference between the string concatenation.
//Example 1: (seems fast)
function StrLoadFile_test1(FileName: string): string;
var
F: text;
c: char;
str1,Line: stri
41 matches
Mail list logo
