Comparison of TCC execution efficiency and C # execution efficiency in Snapman systems

Snapman Collection The TCC compiler can directly compile and execute C script, its script execution efficiency and C # compiler program efficiency comparison, including the following 3 aspects:

1. Function execution Efficiency

2. Convert numbers into strings

3. Stacking of strings

This is the C # code:

usingSystem;usingSystem.Collections.Generic;usingSystem.ComponentModel;usingSystem.Data;usingSystem.Drawing;usingSystem.Linq;usingSystem.Text;usingSystem.Windows.Forms;namespacetestefficiency{ Public Partial classForm1:form { PublicForm1 () {InitializeComponent (); }        intFibonacciintN) {if(n = =1|| n = =2)                return 1; returnFibonacci (N-1) + Fibonacci (N-2); }        stringNumberconvert () {stringresult ="";  for(inti =0; I <14000000; i++) {result=i.tostring (); }            returnresult; }        stringStringappend () {stringConc ="StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder (1024x768);"; StringBuilder SB=NewStringBuilder (1024x768);  for(inti =0; I <1400; i++) {SB=NewStringBuilder (1024x768);  for(intj =0; J <10000; J + +) {sb.                Append (CONC); }            }            returnsb.        ToString (); }        Private voidButton1_Click (Objectsender, EventArgs e) {DateTime Fbefordt=System.DateTime.Now; Fibonacci ( $); DateTime Fafterdt=System.DateTime.Now; TimeSpan TS=fafterdt.subtract (Fbefordt); TextBox1.Text=string. Format ("Fibonacci spend: {0}ms.", TS.            TotalMilliseconds); DateTime Nbefordt=System.DateTime.Now;            Numberconvert (); DateTime Nafterdt=System.DateTime.Now; TimeSpan NTS=nafterdt.subtract (Nbefordt); TextBox2.Text=string. Format ("Numberconvert spend: {0}ms.", NTS.            TotalMilliseconds); DateTime Sbefordt=System.DateTime.Now;            Stringappend (); DateTime Safterdt=System.DateTime.Now; TimeSpan STS=safterdt.subtract (Sbefordt); TextBox3.Text=string. Format ("stringappend spend: {0}ms.", Sts.        TotalMilliseconds); }    }}

This is the page that C # compiles out of release:

This is the TCC script code written in the Snapman system:

intFibonacciintN) {if(n==1|| n==2)          return 1; returnFibonacci (n1) + Fibonacci (n2); }Char*Numberconvert () {Char* result = (Char*)malloc( -);  for(inti =0; I <14000000; i++) {itoa (I,result,Ten); }    returnresult;}Char*Stringappend () {Char* Conc ="StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder (1024x768);"; Char* SB = (Char*)malloc(1024x768),*p; intLen =1024x768, cl = strlen (conc), Curlen =0;  for(inti =0; I <1400; i++)    {         Free(SB); Len=1024x768; Curlen=0; SB= (Char*)malloc(1024x768);  for(intj =0; J <10000; J + +)        {            if(Curlen + CL >Len) {P= (Char*)malloc(len*2);                memcpy (P,sb,curlen);  Free(SB); SB=p; Len*=2; } memcpy (SB+CURLEN,CONC,CL); Curlen+=cl; }} Sb[curlen]=0; returnsb;}voidMain () {intSTARTICC =GetTickCount (); Fibonacci ( $); Wprint (L"Fibonacci spend:%dms", GetTickCount ()-STARTICC); STARTICC=GetTickCount ();  Free(Numberconvert ()); Wprint (L"Numberconvert spend:%dms", GetTickCount ()-STARTICC); STARTICC=GetTickCount ();  Free(Stringappend ()); Wprint (L"stringappend spend:%dms", GetTickCount ()-STARTICC);}

This is the Snapman page:

The two codes are designed and implemented in exactly the same way that the results of their operation compare:

C # Execution Results:

Snapman Execution Results:

Conclusion: The comparison results show that C # In addition to the most efficient StringBuilder and TCC string operation execution speed is much slower than the speed of Snapman, so the Snapman script runs very fast.

Snapman's homepage: http://www.snapman.xyz

Comparison of TCC execution efficiency and C # execution efficiency in Snapman systems