Return-Path: Delivery-Date: Received: from ted.cs.uidaho.edu (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk with SMTP (PP-6.4); Wed, 20 Jan 1993 17:43:50 +0000 Received: by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA14924; Wed, 20 Jan 93 09:15:41 -0800 Sender: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted Errors-To: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted Precedence: bulk Received: from [192.26.234.2] by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA14919; Wed, 20 Jan 93 09:15:28 -0800 Received: from gordano.inmos.co.uk by ganymede.inmos.co.uk; Wed, 20 Jan 93 17:14:53 GMT From: David Shepherd Message-Id: <13365.9301201715@gordano.inmos.co.uk> Subject: hol90 benchmarks To: info-hol@edu.uidaho.cs.ted (info-hol mailing list) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 17:15:22 +0000 (GMT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 934 Richard Boulton pointed out to me that my comparison with hol88 isn't entirely fair as my hol88 figures where for pre-v2 days and a lot of optimisations went into hol88 v2. I'm trying to get sensible hol88 figure to compare with at the moment. In the meantime, I remembered that we have some MipsMachines going going spare here at the moment so I pulled down the mips object files for SML and built hol90 and derived a performance figure of 4500 for hol90 on a Mips R-3000! - i.e. its 45 times faster than hol was when I started using it on Sun 3/150! Sadly, I couldn't get sml to build on an R-4000 we have here :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk tel: 0454-616616 x 625 inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq Life doesn't imitate art, it imitates bad television - Husbands and Wives