Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.quux.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:58:18 +0000
Organization: Rocksolid Light
Message-ID: <c4bead398a5649aa96815e249618b698@www.novabbs.org>
References: <2024Aug30.161204@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <memo.20240830164247.19028y@jgd.cix.co.uk> <vasruo$id3b$1@dont-email.me> <2024Aug30.195831@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vat5ap$jthk$2@dont-email.me> <vaunhb$vckc$1@dont-email.me> <vautmu$vr5r$1@dont-email.me> <2024Aug31.170347@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vavpnh$13tj0$2@dont-email.me> <vb00c2$150ia$1@dont-email.me> <505954890d8461c1f4082b1beecd453c@www.novabbs.org> <vb0kh2$12ukk$1@dont-email.me> <vb3smg$1ta6s$1@dont-email.me> <vb4q5o$12ukk$3@dont-email.me> <vb7b0v$3d1o7$1@dont-email.me> <20240912231016.00004048@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1827554"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="65wTazMNTleAJDh/pRqmKE7ADni/0wesT78+pyiDW8A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$WWV5ppEPbgz2yzPPmTPPkupsvfmqEiLqUULHkc2k5CSHw/9LwR3b6
X-Rslight-Posting-User: ac58ceb75ea22753186dae54d967fed894c3dce8
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2707
Lines: 27

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:10:16 +0000, Michael S wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 17:46:38 +0200
> Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> wrote:
>
>>
>> Q&D programming is still far faster for me in C, but using Rust I
>> don't have to worry about how well the compiler will be able to
>> optimize my code, it is pretty much always close to speed of light
>> since the entire aliasing issue goes away.
>>
>
> I am trying to compare speed of few compiled languages in one benchmark
> that I find interesting.
> In order to make comparison I have to port a test bench first, because
> while most of this languages are able, with various level of
> difficulties, to call C routines, none of them can be called from 'C',
> at least at my level of knowledge.

FORTRAN 77 passes arguments indirectly so the subroutine can write to
the location storing the argument--giving it IN-OUT capabilities.
I never found this indirect creating a bother when calling FORTRAN
from C.

Since C only has IN style arguments (in ADA parlance)::
ADA OUT and INOUT arguments require the compiler knowing about the
OUT nature of the argument, so, upon return, it can place the OUT
argument variables back where they belong.