Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| From: | "Marco van de Voort" <marcov@toad.stack.nl> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 14 Aug 2002 02:21:27 -0400 |
| Organization: | Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands |
| References: | 02-07-098 02-07-121 02-07-128 02-08-005 02-08-024 |
| Keywords: | performance |
| Posted-Date: | 14 Aug 2002 02:21:27 EDT |
Tzvetan Mikov wrote:
> "Joachim Durchholz" <joachim_d@gmx.de> wrote in message
> They have, but not as much as one would hope (or expect, given how much time
> has passed). All 32-bit versions of Borland Pascal/Delphi use Borland C's
> backend which performs some of the standard optimizations. Unfortunately the
> last time I looked (Borland C++ 5.5, 2000) it was still pretty horrible
> compared to GCC or VC (not to mention Intel). I used to be a long time
> Borland fan but I got pretty angry when I saw things like:
> mov eax, ebx
> mov ebx, eax
> in the "optimized" code.
But how did the overal performance differ? Everybody can single out some
thing that was missed by the peephole optimiser (and maybe only because the
construct just before or after it was "special"), but the overall code
quality matters, and can (IMHO) be only done by benchmarking/profiling real
applications. (and not rely on benchmarks too much, since they are often
slightly manipulated because of their marketing importance)
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.