My cleaning script didn't include "rm -f /usr/local/bin/gbs3" and apparently because of changed paths "make install" didn't overwrite old version. So my gbs3 had version number 3.2.90, and no -f option (it was simply ignored)! Just to warn others, you may want to check whether you too have two versions of gbs3 installed (in /usr/local/bin/gbs3 and in /usr/bin/gbs3). If you do, remove the files, run "sudo make install" again and restart your terminal.
$ time gbs3 -c -f polym.gambas 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 1250000 real 0m4.172s user 0m4.158s sys 0m0.012s $ time ./polym 1.25000000000000E+006 1.25000000000000E+006 1.25000000000000E+006 1.25000000000000E+006 1.25000000000000E+006 1.25000000000000E+006 1.25000000000000E+006 1.25000000000000E+006 1.25000000000000E+006 1.25000000000000E+006 real 0m5.376s user 0m5.374s sys 0m0.000s So, Gambas really is faster in fair comparison! Jussi On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:49 PM, T Lee Davidson <[email protected]> wrote: > Just to be clear, I did not run 'polynom.gambas' as a script with the > she-bang specifying to use 'gbs3' to execute it. That *is* slow. > > I executed it using gbs3 with the '-f' option invoking the JustInTime > compiler. > > I also just now used the IDE to create a command-line application based > on the benchmark, created an executable, and then ran that. That was > also so slow (almost 2 minutes to Print the first result) that I did not > let the timing test finish. > > So, it appears that the JIT compiler option is what makes the huge > difference -- on my system anyway. > > > On 10/11/2014 03:07 PM, T Lee Davidson wrote: > > I guess I should have included my system information; just didn't think > > about it being relevant at the time. Obviously, though, it is. > > > > System Info: > > Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz, 1G RAM > > Mageia 3, Kernel 3.10.54 (KDE4) > > Gambas 3.5.4 > > Free Pascal Compiler version 2.6.4 [2014/03/07] for i386 > > > > > > Interestingly, closing my web browser gave me better performance with > > both, but still a roughly 2:1 difference: > > > > Pascal program compiled with `fpc polynom.pas` and then timed: > > real 0m22.445s > > user 0m20.875s > > sys 0m0.014s > > > > Gambas program executed with `time gbs3 -f -c polynom.gambas`: > > real 0m11.303s > > user 0m10.297s > > sys 0m0.035s > > > > > > Lee > > > > > > On 10/11/2014 02:37 PM, Jussi Lahtinen wrote: > >> As you can see, my numbers are something completely different. My test > >> was > >> done with Intel Core2 Quad @ 2.83 GHz. And the Pascal version was > >> compiled > >> with "fpc polym.pas". > >> What kind of system ran the Gambas code in 18 seconds!? And yet, how > >> did it > >> spend 7 times more time on the Pascal program than my system!? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer > Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports > Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper > Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer > http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho > _______________________________________________ > Gambas-user mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho _______________________________________________ Gambas-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user
