On 15-May-07, at 9:21 PM, Daniel Stenning wrote: > > So - here is the 40 million dollar question - WHY is RB nearly 10 > times > slower than C ?
Typically the blame is laid on the lack of (or lax) compiler optimizations. RB loops are simply much slower than optimized C loops, even with all the "speedy" pragmas in place. RB also appears to force some superfluous Single<->Double conversions when you're dealing with single precision data, but I don't know if any of these situations are optimized. I would hope statements like "Ptr.Single = Ptr.Single" or "someSingle = someSingle + someOtherSingle" could be (are?) optimized to avoid conversions. In the end I don't really care *why* RB is slower, I (like many others) would just like to see some drastic improvements... > Is this something that can and should be adressed by RS ? Yes and yes - not that I'm expecting RB code to ever beat or even match optimized C code speed, but there's obviously still lots of room for improvement. Frank. <http://developer.chaoticbox.com/> _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
