Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:36:02 -0400 From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> To: Anton Berezin <tobez@tobez.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc -O bug Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010426133342.032c48f0@mail.etinc.com> In-Reply-To: <20010426151126.E17373@heechee.tobez.org> References: <nospam-988290015.71499@maxim.gbch.net> <xzplmonx31m.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20010426144848.B17373@heechee.tobez.org> <nospam-988290015.71499@maxim.gbch.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:11 AM 04/26/2001, you wrote: >On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:00:15PM +1000, Greg Black wrote: > > Anton Berezin wrote: > > > > | Could you provide the Perl script as well? > > > > That would be pointless. The issue is with the C ... > >I know that. > > > | I am quite sure it can be > > | made to run faster. In fact, it is almost always possible in Perl to > > | closely match the perfomance of a C program for this kind of > > | application. > > > > Nonsense (unless the C program is written by an idiot). > >Nope. The real nonsense is what you say. Perl core is written in a >highly optimized C using very polished algorithms. As long as the Perl >script is written in such a way as to minimize the number of OPCODEs >executed and maximize the time spent inside the OPCODE executor engine, >it is not exactly trivial to beat it in C, unless you are willing to >spent a considerable time polishing your code (which is not worth it for >your typical log analyzer). Don't try to argue this ridiculous point on this list. You are badly overmatched. You are so wrong that its not worthy of debate. Dennis To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.2.1.0.20010426133342.032c48f0>