On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys <gra...@geldenhuys.co.uk> wrote: > On 2013-03-03 23:21, Marcos Douglas wrote: >> >> Sad. Instead of "fight", why not walking together? > > I'm not joining any "fight", simply wanted to know what the 'm' stood for.
I know. I just used the last mail on this thread -- in that case, your mail. Sorry. >> I do not know nothing about compilers, but I know the Florian Klämpfl >> will do nothing about you're saying because do you do not have >> proposed improvements! > > You said it yourself... most of us know nothing about compiler coding. > So how are we supposed to propose improvements! All we can do is file > bug reports on things we can duplicate, or highlight issues. This is > what Martin is doing here. Yes, I agree... but I feel a "fight" between Martin and FPC Team, don't you agree? > 4.4 seconds (Kylix under Linux) vs 89 seconds (FPC under Linux)... That > is just too a huge performance difference to justify. Yes, we all know > the argument about more platforms, maintainable code etc, but that > couldn't possible be the only reason for such a huge speed difference. > Somewhere there is a serious bottleneck(s), or the FPC team simply > disregard optimization completely. From why I have heard them say, the > latter is more likely [unfortunately]. > > But let me repeat what you said earlier. Some of use know nothing about > compilers coding, so not much we can do about it. The task falls > squarely on the select few, but they have no interest in that. > Optimization is boring work, compared to implementing the latest CPU > target or language feature. I understand that fully. A great pity. I feel the same... but we can not force people who work for free to do tasks that are not important to them. >> You are only showing the Delphi/Kylix speed is >> extremely superior > > And Martin is just showing half the problem. The Delphi & Kylix > compilers also produce executables that run 10+ times faster than what > FPC 2.6.0 can produce. Even on the more optimized 32-bit compiler. And > don't even think of mentioning that faster hardware will mask the > problem - it doesn't. I have a i7-2660K running at 3.6Ghz with high > performance RAM and 450MB read speed SSD. I noticed a > 10+ times > difference in running executables on my hardware. Again I repeat: I agree with you. The Pascal is known because it is simple, elegant, [,,,] and FAST. > And comments from Florian like "expect FPC to get even slower by the > next release" doesn't help much. Yeah... very sad. > Nobody expects FPC to beat Delphi or Kylix performance, but FPC > degrading its speed (compile time and executable run time) year-on-year > is not a good sign for the long run. Many many "improvements" trying to following Delphi, Java, whatever. > Anyway, this is nothing new. I mentioned this long ago, and made my > peace with it. I have to cherish the fact that FPC is luckily still > faster that C/C++ compilers. For the time being... :) Marcos Douglas _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
