Performance of Personal PL/I on a Thinkpad 600 (300MHz Pentium II) 
Author Message
 Performance of Personal PL/I on a Thinkpad 600 (300MHz Pentium II)

<snip>

Quote:

> You sound shocked, its my guess no-one left here has written anything that anyone ever asked for before,
> and I merely pointed out that IBM has removed ALL traces of its Personal PL/I from the PL/I web pages.

<snip>

Once again D.Frank lies to us and destroys any remaining hope for
credibility.  On Friday I downloaded Personal PL/I from the IBM web
site.  URL =

http://www.*-*-*.com/

The URL is rather long and will probably wrap when you display it so to
use it you will have to splice it back together.

Note: the above information about Personal PL/I has been posted
previously in this forum so D.Frank has no excuse. Also, you can end up
at this location by wading your way thru the IBM web site, but I have to
admit that since they sell a ton of products on this site putting
Personal PL/I in neon lights would not be a high priority.



Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:13:20 GMT  
 Performance of Personal PL/I on a Thinkpad 600 (300MHz Pentium II)


Quote:


> <snip>

> > You sound shocked, its my guess no-one left here has written anything that anyone ever asked for before,
> > and I merely pointed out that IBM has removed ALL traces of its Personal PL/I from the PL/I web pages.

> <snip>

> Once again D.Frank lies to us and destroys any remaining hope for
> credibility.  On Friday I downloaded Personal PL/I from the IBM web
> site.  URL =

http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?cata...

Quote:

> The URL is rather long and will probably wrap when you display it so to
> use it you will have to splice it back together.

> Note: the above information about Personal PL/I has been posted
> previously in this forum so D.Frank has no excuse.

Sure the above info has been posted before, in fact I posted a easy method to find where its been hidden.
Just go to www.ibm.com and keyin 'personal pl/i ' in the main search window, and the 1st item found takes you
to same garbage-dump link as above, if you insist on going there.

Quote:
> Also, you can end up
> at this location by wading your way thru the IBM web site, but I have to
> admit that since they sell a ton of products on this site putting
> Personal PL/I in neon lights would not be a high priority.

Check the link below to see what I mean by my statement:
 IBM HAS REMOVED ALL TRACES OF ITS PERSONAL PL/I FROM THE PLI WEB PAGES

http://www-3.ibm.com/software/ad/pli/

There is no info about personal pl/i  at the this page. It was apparently removed sometime in last year,
dont you guys wonder what IBM is trying to tell you about this product?
They must be embarrassed that it says "for Windows" when it doesnt support Windows programming..



Fri, 01 Jul 2005 06:18:12 GMT  
 Performance of Personal PL/I on a Thinkpad 600 (300MHz Pentium II)

Quote:



> > That's pretty rich, you wanting the exe made by a compiler you claim
> > doesn't even exist.

> You sound shocked, its my guess no-one left here has written anything that anyone ever asked for before,
> and I merely pointed out that IBM has removed ALL traces of its Personal PL/I from the PL/I web pages.

Richard, they haven't.


Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:19:11 GMT  
 Performance of Personal PL/I on a Thinkpad 600 (300MHz Pentium II)



<SNIP>

Quote:
> Specifically,
> it eliminated entirely the use of the imul instruction in the subscript
> computations and instead used the ability of the hardware to multiply
subscripts
> by small powers of 2 (i.e., 8) on the fly.

I can't think why the compiler ever needed multiply or shift instructions to
subscript the array when add is sufficient....

it could do the alogorithm:

    do i=lbound(a,1) to hbound(a,1);
         do j=lbound(a,2) to hbound(a,2);
                 a(i,j)=a(i,j)*x;
                end;
    end;

   like this - "pseudo PL/1"
          dcl f bin float(63) based(p);

          do p=addr(a) by storage(f)  to addr(a)+storage(a)-storage(f)
                 p->float*=x;
                end;
 but it may have been inhibited by a(*,*)  not being declared as CONNECTED
.......



Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:13:53 GMT  
 Performance of Personal PL/I on a Thinkpad 600 (300MHz Pentium II)


Quote:

> The benchmark is irrelevant for comparing compiler performance, its
> main ingerdient is memory bandwidth:

I agree...What would be much more interesting would be for David & James to
publish the handful of machine instructions that the compilers generated for
the multiplication loop so we can see how clever the compiler writers
actually are.


Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:21:13 GMT  
 Performance of Personal PL/I on a Thinkpad 600 (300MHz Pentium II)

Quote:

> I can't think why the compiler ever needed multiply or shift instructions to
> subscript the array when add is sufficient....

> it could do the alogorithm:

>     do i=lbound(a,1) to hbound(a,1);
>          do j=lbound(a,2) to hbound(a,2);
>                  a(i,j)=a(i,j)*x;
>                 end;
>     end;

>    like this - "pseudo PL/1"
>           dcl f bin float(63) based(p);

>           do p=addr(a) by storage(f)  to addr(a)+storage(a)-storage(f)
>                  p->float*=x;
>                 end;
>  but it may have been inhibited by a(*,*)  not being declared as CONNECTED
> .......

Well, I didn't write the compiler, so I can't answer that.  But, bear in mind
that Personal PL/I is an elcheapo release of a stripped down version of an out
of date product.  (As least I think so based on statements others have made in
this newsgroup)

CONNECTED doesn't make any difference.  I tried that.

Despite the above statements, I have found Personal PL/I extremely satisfactory.
  The thing I have found most disappointing from an aesthetic point of view,
although it doesn't actually cause any trouble because I have plenty of memory,
is that an expression which concatenates several strings of indeterminate length
can require several hundred K of temporary workspace even though the maximum
string length supported is 32K.  Even the original F compiler got that right 35
years ago.  But then they had to be prepared to live within 50K.



Wed, 06 Jul 2005 07:51:44 GMT  
 
 [ 24 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 
 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software