notes:comporg:projects:pnc2
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| notes:comporg:projects:pnc2 [2018/02/08 12:54] – [Kevin Todd (ktodd3)] ktodd3 | notes:comporg:projects:pnc2 [2018/02/11 16:50] (current) – [Benjamin Schultes PNC1:] wedge | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
| As shown in the graph and chart, the C implemented pncs destroyed the other languages in runtime. Compiling with gccO3 gave the best performance in terms of runtime performance. It can be concluded that the lower-level language outperformed the higher-level languages in terms of runtime and qty. | As shown in the graph and chart, the C implemented pncs destroyed the other languages in runtime. Compiling with gccO3 gave the best performance in terms of runtime performance. It can be concluded that the lower-level language outperformed the higher-level languages in terms of runtime and qty. | ||
| - | ===Benjamin Schultes PNC1: === | + | ====Benjamin Schultes PNC1:==== |
| ===All Scripts=== | ===All Scripts=== | ||
| - | [[notes: | + | {{:notes: |
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
| As expected, the C programs outperformed all other scripts. There isn't a lot of data shown on the chart because many of the C programs had very similar run times. | As expected, the C programs outperformed all other scripts. There isn't a lot of data shown on the chart because many of the C programs had very similar run times. | ||
| Line 193: | Line 200: | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| - | ===Christian Cattell pnc2=== | + | ====Christian Cattell pnc2==== |
notes/comporg/projects/pnc2.1518094443.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/02/08 12:54 by ktodd3
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
