Xojo Apps Slow?

General
1

When doing a

For I = 0 to 100000000 xojo needs around four seconds for it, J.v. Not even a second. Even

#Pragma BackgroundTasks False
#Pragma NilObjectChecking False

Var start As Double
start = datetime.now.SecondsFrom1970

For i As Integer = 1 To 100000000  
Next

Var dauer As Double
dauer = datetime.now.SecondsFrom1970 - start
label1.Text=Str(dauer)

It costs three seconds , with p…l it costs less than a second and also XX++ does it under a second.

This is the same case under windows, Linux and MAC osX.

So far so good why I can not get even half of the speed as other languages? Did also a try with Linux g…s what done it in 1.04 seconds, a language which is hit compiled.

Is the any other chance to optimize it?

2

Are you running this in a debug session or as a built app? We do inject some additional debugging information for debug builds FWIW.

2 Likes
3

The compiled version needs 0.151711 seconds

4

On Linux it’s much slower trust me. And no, builder. The Mac I am using is old so it is not counting but

5

Try a build, compile agrressive and it will strip the empty loop as far as my counting goes…

And you can use even more pragmas to speedup

Java does essentially the same, i think it strips the entire loop…

6

But it is interesting that it is in the other languages also not optimized! So it is to slow without pragmas

7

Other languages will eliminate the loop completely.

1 Like
8

Yes they will but why not xojo?

9

Are you timing a loop or asking about how much optimisation the compiler does?

10

First: I am asking why the loop was so slow. Second: it’s important to have the security that the compiler is delivering fast code for a simple loop

11

Xojo with default compilation:

0x10012d711 <+273>: movq   $0x0, -0x28(%rbp)
0x10012d719 <+281>: movb   $0x0, -0x29(%rbp)
0x10012d71d <+285>: movq   $0x0, -0x38(%rbp)
0x10012d725 <+293>: movq   $0x1, -0x28(%rbp)
0x10012d72d <+301>: movl   $0x5f5e100, %eax          ; imm = 0x5F5E100 
0x10012d732 <+306>: movl   %eax, %ecx
0x10012d734 <+308>: cmpq   -0x28(%rbp), %rcx
0x10012d738 <+312>: setl   %dl
0x10012d73b <+315>: andb   $0x1, %dl
0x10012d73e <+318>: movb   %dl, -0x29(%rbp)
0x10012d741 <+321>: cmpb   $0x0, %dl
0x10012d744 <+324>: je     0x10012d768               ; <+360>
...
0x10012d766 <+358>: jmp    0x10012d77c               ; <+380>
0x10012d768 <+360>: jmp    0x10012d76a               ; <+362>
0x10012d76a <+362>: movq   -0x28(%rbp), %rax
0x10012d76e <+366>: addq   $0x1, %rax
0x10012d772 <+370>: movq   %rax, -0x38(%rbp)
0x10012d776 <+374>: movq   %rax, -0x28(%rbp)
0x10012d77a <+378>: jmp    0x10012d72d               ; <+301>

Xojo will do the loop and use addq to add 1 to the integer and actually run the loop 0x5f5e100 Times.

1 Like
12

With aggressive compilation, the loop is gone in assembly. Time is now 0.000139 for me here, which mostly may be time needed to query time.

2 Likes
13

Geht also nur mit aggressiver Optimierung, gut zu wissen, vielen Dank does only work with aggressive optimizatio , good to know.

14

I didn’t try the medium level, but you can try it.