It seems like rust would perform better in this benchmark against languages like Erlang and Haskell, which have even longer names.
Geoffrey On Sep 24, 2013, at 10:08 AM, John Mija <jon...@proinbox.com> wrote: > Summary: Rustc 17.7s, Go 13.6s, Clang 11.2s, GCC 10.4s. > > Note that the versions in Clang, G++ and Go are rendering the word "Go" while > that the Rust version is rendering a word bigger "Rust" > > System: x86_64 GNU/Linux 3.8.0-30-generic > Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2100 CPU @ 3.10GHz > 4 GB RAM > > I've used Rust trunk, Go 1.1.2: > > $ gcc --version > gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.3-1ubuntu1) 4.7.3 > > $ clang --version > Ubuntu clang version 3.2-1~exp9ubuntu1 (tags/RELEASE_32/final) (based on LLVM > 3.2) > Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu > Thread model: posix > > $ go version > go version go1.1.2 linux/amd64 > > $ rust --version > rust 0.8 (b6fe27c 2013-09-24 07:06:09 -0700) > host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > > * * * > > $ rustc --opt-level=3 raytracer.rs -o rayt-rust > $ time ./rayt-rust > rayt-rust.ppm > > real 0m17.746s > user 0m17.332s > sys 0m0.404s > > $ go tool 6g raytracer.go && go tool 6l -o rayt-go raytracer.6 && rm > raytracer.6 > > $ time ./rayt-go > rayt-go.ppm > > real 0m13.664s > user 0m13.656s > sys 0m0.008s > > $ clang -O3 -lm raytracer.cpp -o rayt-clang > $ time ./rayt-clang > rayt-clang.ppm > > real 0m11.199s > user 0m11.188s > sys 0m0.004s > > $ g++ -O3 -lm raytracer.cpp -o rayt-g++ > $ time ./rayt-g++ > rayt-g++.ppm > > real 0m10.411s > user 0m10.404s > sys 0m0.000s > > > El 24/09/13 14:52, Huon Wilson escribió: >> On 24/09/13 16:18, John Mija wrote: >>> Since a post in HN about a raytracer into a business card, a guy built >>> the implementation in Go: >>> >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/mxYzHQSV3rw >>> >>> The C++ version: https://gist.github.com/kid0m4n/6680629 >>> The Go version: https://github.com/kid0m4n/gorays >>> >>> Performance (2.2 Ghz Quad Core (2675QM), 16 GB RAM, OX 10.9, Go 1.1.2): >>> >>> C++ version: 11.803 s >>> Go version: 28.883 s >>> >>> * * * >>> It would be interesting if somebody with experience in Rust could >>> build the version in Rust to compare the speed. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rust-dev mailing list >>> Rust-dev@mozilla.org >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >> >> I bit: https://github.com/huonw/card-trace >> >> Summary: Clang 13.8s, GCC 17.9s, Rustc 17.9s. >> >> (1.9GHz 3517U, 8 GB, linux. GCC: 4.8.1, Clang: 3.3, rustc: 18e3bcd >> 2013-09-23 23:46:05 -0700.) >> >> I just did essentially a transliteration of the C++ into (reasonably >> idiomatic) Rust, I imagine one could make it faster with some effort, >> but that would be cheating (at least, it would then become a test of >> *my* micro-optimisation ability, rather than that of the compilers). It >> appears that clang vectorises/uses SSE directly more eagerly than either >> gcc or rustc from some quick poking with perf. >> >> (I don't have Go on this computer to compare; although I imagine the >> only comparison of interest would be with gccgo, since "normal" go >> doesn't optimise anywhere near as much as LLVM does.) >> >> Huon >> _______________________________________________ >> Rust-dev mailing list >> Rust-dev@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
