[Info-vax] Python for x86?

[Dave Froble]

On 5/9/2023 3:38 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
> On 08/05/2023 16:34, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/8/2023 7:23 AM, Chris Townley wrote:
>>> On 08/05/2023 04:30, terry-... at glaver.org wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>>   Basic:
>>>>    24.6609 million integer operations per second
>>>>    28.4091 million floating point operations per second
>>
>>> Interesting that BASIC show integer as slower than FP
>>
>> Yes. I was puzzled by that as well. But I got the same result
>> on my systems.
>>
>> /NOCHECK does not change it so it is not the overflow
>> check.
>>
>> Maybe there is some subtle error in the Basic integer
>> test code. But I cannot see it.
>>
>> Or maybe it is just an example of how random results
>> can be with a very limited benchmark - the integer
>> result practically depends on a single line of code.
>>
>> Arne
>>
>
> Finally got round to testing my thoughts.
>
> On my FreeAXP (no JIT) setup I get the following with your code:
>
> Basic:
>   12.3182 million integer operations per second
>   14.1572 million floating point operations per second
>    0.0080 million string operations per second
>
>
> I then changed the integer bits to append the % to all integer constants, and
> now get:
>
> Basic:
>   31.6586 million integer operations per second
>
> It shows how BASIC can be slowed down not doing that!
>

I haven't been following this closely, but, First guess is that the variables 
were defaulted to floating point, and then perhaps an integer conversion happened?

Can you post the code?

Once past the compiler, the "%" and "$" signs don't matter, since the compiler 
would assign the variables, if not declared, and it would just be data and 
addresses/pointers afterwards.

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486