PC Toledo

Código: Selecionar todos

It works but it's not very good choice.
There are some very serious bugs in BCC but for the ones known for us
we have workarounds, i.e. we do not use any floating point BCC low level
functions like _fpclass[l]() because they break 'double' number
calculations reducing the precision to 'float' level or we use
DLMALLOC as default memory manager because the one in BCC can cause
memory corruption in some situations.
But more important is the fact that BCC was not extended in last years
and now in comparison to other modern C compilers it does not have many
important features and optimization methods.
In contrast nearly each new GCC version has some important extensions
which improve optimization code and performance of final applications,
i.e. GCC 4.4 generates nearly twice faster code then 2.9x. (see results
below).

Harbour core code is written in a way which should help in optimization
process for compilers using some advanced optimization methods like
automatic autoinlining or automatic detecting of restricted areas due
to constant declarations or strict aliasing rules. It even does not have
such simple optimization methods like using assembler inline code for
commonly used CTRL functions like memset(), memcmp(), memmove(),
str*(), etc.
The results can be visible in the speed of final binaries.
You can use harbour/tests/speedtst.prg to compare the speed of Harbour
compiled with different C compilers.
You can also use it with other xbase/clipper compatible languages like
xHarbour, Clipper, CLIP, FlagShip, xBase++.

Below I'm attaching results for current Harbour SVN code. I cannot make
any tests with MSVC because I cannot use it with WINE. The speedtst.prg
code does not make any IO operations which may effect execution speed
so WINE and DOSEMU can execute final binaries naively without any time
consuming interrupts which may the results.
I used "official" MinGW with GCC 3.4.5 which gives slower code then GCC4.4.
I also do not have the newest PelleC 6.0.

GCC4.5 was used with -flto which enable link time optimization (LTO).
As you can see GCC4.4 in C++ mode and GCC4.5 gives the fastest code
and old PelleC compiler used by xHarbour.com (XCC) gives the slowest
code.
I haven't installed yet C++ compiler for GCC4.5 which potentially should
give the fastest code.
Please note that all OpenWatcom builds were created with disable IPO
optimization in HVM code. Due to compilation time we disabled HB_HVM_ALL=yes
optimization which improve the performance of final OW binaries.

Here are sorted the results.

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) GNU C 4.5 (64-bit) x86-64
   [ total application time: ]....................................14.66

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) GNU C++ 4.4 (64-bit) x86-64
   [ total application time: ]....................................14.65

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) GNU C 4.4 (64-bit) x86-64
   [ total application time: ]....................................14.95

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) Intel(R) (ICC) C 11.0 (64-bit) x86-64
   [ total application time: ]....................................16.22

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) Open64 C 4.2.1 (64-bit) x86-64
   [ total application time: ]....................................16.29

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) LLVM/Clang C 4.2.1 (64-bit) x86-64
   [ total application time: ]....................................17.57

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) GNU C 4.4 (32-bit) x86
   [ total application time: ]....................................18.13

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) Sun C (ident 0x5100) (64-bit) x86-64
   [ total application time: ]....................................18.21

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) MinGW GNU C 3.4.5 (32-bit) x86
   [ total application time: ]....................................19.09

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) Delorie GNU C 4.3.2 (DJGPP 2.04) (32-bit) x86
   [ total application time: ]....................................23.18

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) Open Watcom C 12.80 (32-bit) x86 (LINUX)
   [ total application time: ]....................................23.54

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) Open Watcom C++ 12.80.8 (32-bit) x86 (WIN)
   [ total application time: ]....................................25.65

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) Open Watcom C 12.80 (32-bit) x86 (DOS)
   [ total application time: ]....................................25.76

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) Borland C++ 5.5 (32-bit) x86
   [ total application time: ]....................................27.48

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) GNU C 2.96 (32-bit) x86
   [ total application time: ]....................................29.39

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) Pelles ISO C Compiler 4.50 (32-bit) x86
   [ total application time: ]....................................30.83

Harbour 2.1.0dev (Rev. 14060) Pelles ISO C Compiler 2.70 (32-bit) x86 (XCC)
   [ total application time: ]....................................34.70


For comparison I'm attaching result for some other compatible compilers.
xHarbour was compiled from current CVS with some small improvements and
fixes.

xHarbour build 1.2.1 Intl. (SimpLex) (Rev. 6691) GNU C 4.4 (64 bit) ?
   [ total application time: ]....................................32.42

xHarbour build 1.2.1 Intl. (SimpLex) (Rev. 6691) MinGW GNU C 3.4.5 (32 bit) ?
   [ total application time: ]....................................33.78

xHarbour build 1.2.1 Intl. (SimpLex) (Rev. 6691) Borland C++ 5.5 (32 bit) ?
   [ total application time: ]....................................44.02

FlagShip 4.48.2460 (1024 users) ?
   [ total application time: ]....................................80.04

best regards,
Przemek